MINING ON FREEHOLDS.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 207, 6 September 1897, Page 2

MINING ON FREEHOLDS.

AN AUSTRALIAN DECISION

The judgment of the Full Court in Zobel v. Croudace, says the " Sydney Morning Herald," settles definitely the status of applicants for mining leases on freehold property. They have, under that judgment, the rights of possession and prospecting on certain defined conditions, therefore the injunction obtained against the owner of the freehold was sustained- To the minds of those unfamiliar with the subject of mining on private property, the spectacle of an owner treated as a trespasser on his own land is curious. Tho term trespassing owner appears to be a contradiction in terms. But when there is a serious difference between the surface rights and the underground rights of owners, Aye must be prepared for such things. The owner in this case had mined for copper on the property, he had abandoned the mine, at least for a time, and his works and plant were, according to the evidence in the case, going to rack and ruin. Very soon, however, after the plaintiff entered upon the land and applied for a lease for goldmining purposes, the owner returned to his copper mine, and there was at once a deadlock. That deadlock only the intervention of the Court could remove, and the Court did so in the only possible way, viz., by protecting the party whose right had accrued under the law after the abandonment of tho owner's mining business. What would be the fate of an application to mine for gold in ground already being worked for an inferior or non-royal metal, say copper, is a question which need not be entered into here, because the judgment was in no way concerned with it, the evidence having established to the satisfaction of the Court the fact that the working for copper had been abandoned. The Court simply secured to the applicant for a goldmining lease, who had complied with the law, the right that_ had come to him by the law. Had it not done so, then its decision would have enabled landowners to stop by process of seesaw all mineral operations upon their property, -a thing contrary to the spirit of the law, which gives to the public the right to mine upon private property. _ Owners may, of course, apply tor protection for mining operations of their own. Had the defendant adopted that course, no doubt he would have obtained the equities of his position. Whatever they may have been it is at present not necessary to inquire. The point is of general interest as showing how complications may arise. We believe that there is a legal decision to the effect that in cases of conflicting interest the more valuable mineral is entitled to preference. It is obvious at the same time that the application of any general rule is necessarily subject to the equities of particular cases.