1.--1B

2

7. That, in or about the month of February, 1889, your petitioner James Gray acquired the Fernhill Colliery, including all the rights and interests of the company and its successors to and in the Fernhill Branch Bailway, and to and in all the rent, interest on cost of construction, or other compensation claimed in connection therewith. 8. That the practical effect of the decision of Mr. Justice Williams in the case of Hazlett and Another v. Allen and Others (8 N.Z. L.E., p. 500) was that your petitioner, James Gray, was, by virtue of " The Government Bailways Act, 1887," and " The Public Works Act 1882 Amendment Act, 1889," deprived of his title to this branch line made and paid for by the money of the Fernhill Coal Company (Limited). 9. That your petitioner, James Gray, was and is humbly of opinion that when the said Acts of 1887 and 1889 were passed they were intended to apply only to public railways made with the moneys of the colony, and not to private lines, such as the Fernhill Branch line. 10. That accordingly your petitioner James Gray, in 1891, presented to this honourable House a petition setting forth the facts above narrated, and humbly praying that, if the law should be as laid down in Mr. Justice Williams's decision (referred to as above), your honourable House should take steps to pass an Act declaring that the said Acts or any other Act do not apply to the said Fernhill Branch line, your petitioner James Gray's private property. 11. That the said petition presented by your petitioner, James Gray, was so presented under the advice and with the concurrence of Sir Bobert Stout, who was fully aware of all its terms. 12. That on the 28th day of August, 1891, the clerk of your honourable House notified your petitioner, James Gray, that the Waste Lands Committee of your honourable House had reported on the said petition as follows: " Committee recommend that the Government purchase petitioner's railway branch." 13. That there is now due to your petitioner, James Gray, the sum of £321 16s. 4d., being wages due at £3 15s. per week, for managing the said Fernhill Colliery. 14. That there is now due to your petitioner, the said John Hamill, the sum of £299 13s. 10d., being wages due at £3 per week, for managing and supervising the said Fernhill Branch line of railway. 15. That there is now due to your petitioner, the said David Andrew, the sum of £310, made up as follows : — Purchase-money of land on which portion of Fernhill Branch Bailway is built, 3 acres at £50 ... ... ... ... ... £150 Ballast supplied for Fernhill Branch Bailway line ... ... ... 160 £310 16. That there is now due to your petitioner, John Toomey, the sum of £59 10s., for moneys from time to time advanced and guarantee given for the purpose of enabling the Fernhill Colliery and the Fernhill Branch Eailway line to be worked by the proprietors. 17. That there is now due to your petitioner, Latham Osborn Beal, C.E., the sum of £212 165., for professional services rendered in inspecting the Fernhill Colliery,, making surveys, and attending to give evidence in an action brought in 1888 by one A. H. Logan, the then proprietor of the Fernhill Colliery, against the Corporation of Dunedin. 18. That there is now due to your petitioner, Eobert Blair Denniston, the sum of £160, in respect of professional services rendered in inspecting the Fernhill Colliery, and making surveys and giving evidence in the said action. . 19. That the whole of the said several debts due to your petitioners as aforesaid were incurred by them, relying for payment on the assets of the Fernhill Colliery, including the Fernhill Branch Bailway, which has always been worked along with the coal-mine, and has been considered as a part of the assets of the Colliery Company. 20. That your petitioner, David Andrew, provided portions of the land required for the said railway line, and also the ballast required for the construction of the same, and has never been paid therefor. 21. That your petitioners, James Gray and John Hamill, are working-men who have expended their labour for a long time on the said mine and railway-line respectively, without receiving the wages contracted to be paid to them in respect of such labour. 22. That your petitioner, John Toomey, for a considerable time provided the moneys required for working the said mine and railway, and now claims to be repaid such moneys. 23. That, so far as your petitioners have been able to ascertain, the position of affairs with regard to the title of the said Fernhill Mine and railway-line is somewhat as follows : — The said mine and line in 1883 were owned and occupied by the Fernhill Eailway and Coal Company (Limited), now defunct, subject to a mortgage for £5,000 to the New Zealand Mortgage and Investment Association. In or about 1886 the said association agreed to sell their interest in both mine and line to Mr. John Logan, and placed him in possession thereof. In 1886 or 1887 Mr. John Logan sold and transferred his interest in the mine and line to his son, Mr. A. H. Logan. On the 10th of May, 1887, Mr. John Logan agreed to mortgage all his interest in the mine and line to Messrs. Stout and Mondy for £500. In February, 1889, Sir Eobert Stout agreed to sell and transfer to your petitioner, James Gray, the said line and mine. In the said month of February, 1889, the said A. H. Logan became a bankrupt. 24. That, since the said month of February, 1889, the said James Gray, your petitioner, has been in possession of the said mine and line, and latterly has been working the same on his own account. 25. That, in or about the month of March, 1893, Sir Eobert Stout wrote to the railway authorities calling their attention to the fact that, under the Acts of 1887 and 1889 referred to, the line vested in them. • '■ - '•- ■