NICHOLLS V. M'GOWAN.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 512, 3 June 1869, Page 2

NICHOLLS V. M'GOWAN.

(To tie Editor of the TVestport Times.) Sir, —All losers in a mining case naturally feel some little annoyance, and I should indeed be surprised if the losers in the above case did not do so, particularly as there is no rule bearing on the case. If they could not gain by law, at least they ought by equity. As an old experienced miner 1 was never aware, before to-day, that men could hold two claims when one of them was paying fair wages, as they themselves acknowledged in Court. If this is to be carried out, a party holding a number of miners' rights can monopolise not only the whole of a lead but the whole of a country, according to the number he holds, and by this a company could hold out and deprive the hard-work-ing miner of his chance. This, indeed, is going contrary to what the General Government lately offered a prize for, viz.: " the permanent settlement of the goldfields," for,shouldtheabove system be carried out, I am thoroughly convincedthat the better part of the miners will leave the coast, or, if not, they must now, in self-defence, call meetings among themselves and insist upon a mining conference for the revision of the rules. It is impossible that men earning their bread by the sweat of their brow can afford, for every little difference in mining, to have the answer given thera " Tou must bring it before the Court." I assure you, Sir, that this is the curse of this coast. The whole of the money the miners earn, after paying for " tucker," goes in law. I once heard an eminent lawyer in Victoria say—- " When once you admit lawyers into the Warden's Court there will be nothing but litigation." Fancy £2O for appearing in this Court before the Warden; yet such is the case.—l am, Sir, yours &c., Fate Plat.