IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

Waikato Times, Volume XXX, Issue 2464, 26 April 1888, Page 2

IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

A cash of considerable importance) to the mining community, was heard before Mr Warden Northcroft, on Tuesday 24th inst. Henry Hyde, who was represented by Mr Miller, solicitor of the Thames, claimed possession of a valuable piece of ground called the Success Claim, owing to the same not having been bona-fide, and continuously worked for 4 months last past. The defendants, Mr T. 0. Mailow and Mr J. M. Murray, were represented by Mr W. MacGregor Hay, of Hamilton, and Mr Lush, of the Thames. The evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses, Messrs (x. Wilson (Mining Registrar), Hirst, and Kirker, disclosed that the Success Claim was registered in the names of the defendant's under the Gold Mining Districts Act, 1873, and contained fifteen men's ground as computed under the Act. That the protection granted to the claim expired on November liltli, 1887, and no men were put on to work until the tniddlo ot January, 1888, and then only two men, one of whom was absent for ten days. The defence proved that Murray's interest in the claim had been assigned to trustees for the benelit of creditors, and that Mr Marlow had agreed with the managing trustee, Mr Burns, of Wingate, Burns and Co., that he should manage all matters in connection with the claim for both parties, Mr Burns engaged Mr Hirst to look after the interests of the owners of the claim, and repeatedly wrote to him to be sure to keep saflieient men working to protect it. Mr Marlow made enquiries from time to tune, and was assured that the claim was either protected or sullioiently manned. It was understood by Hirst, Burns and Marlow that the claim w.is under the Mining Act, 18SG, which had rntwaled the Gold mining Districts Act, 1873, and tint the claim would be sufficiently m timed under the former Act by three men. A great deal of work had been done on the claim. Mr Hay, in addressing the Court for the defence, said that it would be worse tlnn useless for him to attempt to disguise the. fact that the claim had not been sufficiently manned. The law upon the subject was of the most imperative character, and left the Court no discretion. If the Court was satisfied that the claim had not been fully manned, the clear duty of the Court was to forfeit the claim and award the costs to the plaintiff. He frankly admitted that there was evidence to satisfy the Court of non-working, but there was a section in the Act which enabled the Court to substitute a monetary fine for a forfeiture, and he asked the Court to pursue this course and as there had been no wilful neglect on the part of the owners proved, lie trusted that the fine would be nominal. The case he said was a peculiar one inasmuch as from the time of the Mining Act, 188G, coming into force (Ist January, 1587.) until June ISB7, when the Amending Act was passed the claim was actually under the Act of 188(3 and required only throe men to man it. The owners although presumed to know the law did not, in fact know it, and were under the impression that the claim continued under the Act of 1S8!> and that Hirst and the two workmen were sufficient to know the claim

Mr Miller replied at considerable length, and contended that a breach of the conditions on which the claim was granted had taken place, and that a forfeiture must necessarily follow. The Court had the power to award the claim ti> the plaintiff, and he claimed that that course should be pursued as the proper one under the ciroumstances, He pointed out that if the non-working was wilful and continuous, the Court had no power to relievo the defendants by a iine, and it was fully proved in the evidence that the neulect was wilful and continuous. He trusted the Court would either award the whole claim to the plaintiff, or the whole, as two men's ground, as computed under tho Act of 1873. The Warden reserved judgment until the following morning at ten o'clock, when he fined the defendants £5, and ordered them to pay costs, £10 10s. The Warden stated he did not think a neglect sufficiently wilful on tho part of the owners to debar him from restoring tho claim to them had been proved. The ease was looked forward to with great interest by tho mining community, and the decision gave general satisfaction.