MINING MACHINERY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXX, Issue 28, 3 February 1899, Page 5

MINING MACHINERY.

A QUESTION OF DUTY,

KAURI FREEHOLD GOLD ESTATES Y. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

An important case in connection with the question of Customs duty on milling machinery was commenced at. the Supreme Court this morning, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a special jury of four. This was the case Kauri Freehold Gold Estates, Limited, v. Ihe Collector of Customs at Auckland, in which the plaintiff Company claimed . se sum of ;t! 1136 5/ deposited with the Collector of Customs as duty on machinery. The ob-

ject of the action was to decide whether screens, rock-breaker, ore-feeder. shoes and dies, and mortar boxes, imported by the plaintiffs, were dutiable or free as "gold'saving machinery.'

Messrs Theo. Cooper a:idJ. A. Tole appeared for Mr Rose, the Collector of Customs, who was present: untl Mr T. Cotter conducted the case for the plaintiff company.

Mi1 Cotter, i : open ingl the case, said the plaintiffs were an incorporated company currying' on business in Auckland, and imported goods last year wholly consisting of mining machinery, 104 packagv;; being' receiwd by the m.h. Krar of Xew /--'aland, and l.'ii packages by the s.s. Star vi' Victoria I'rom London. A dispute arose as 10 i!;c rale of duty payable on iliis maehinei'v. 'I'll;' iirsi shipnu'iii comprised separate portions of machinery, being' portions of a forfy stamp mill for crushing1 ore, while the l.'ii packages were the remaining' parts of tin* mill (which is being' constructed at Opitonni). -Mr Cotter quoted Ihc Customs and Kxeise Duty Act, IS'ls, in which Section :.' imposed duty on certain articles, while Reel ion :! exempted certain articles from duty mentioned in Schedule P>. This schedule imposed a tax of live per cent, on all mining' machinery, inclm .n»" strain pumps, hut excluded all machinery for "■old saving- purposes and processes. The exemption contained in this schedule came into operation in September. ISO."). Mrs Cotter quoted other Acts bearing on the case, and defined the meaning oi' g-old so far as the mill was concerned was all sorts of grold, except coin, and all substances containing1 gold. The mill imported by the Company included the cyanide ]ii'O('ess. He eiHimerated the various pieces of machinery contained in The shipments and the duty charged. He said lie wouid call expert, analytical, and practical .evidence, the latter by a person who was a machine maker. The evidence woidd show that so far as was known at present there was no proevss by which pro Id co'ultl be extracted from the ore by one blow. He submitted that a process meant a series of operations. The toial value ol' the machinery in question imported by the Company was ,f :i,7'io, on which duty was paid ai the rate of five per cent. The amount of the duty was C i;>(s .')/. The main point to be decided was whether grizzlies, rockbreakers, ore-feeders, shoes, dies, and mortar boxes were dutiable, or should be admitted free as necessary for gold saving' plant.

hi the statement of defence, the Collector of Customs contended Unit the whole of such machinery was niaehinery for mining purposes within the meaning of Class .j|, of Schedule A in the Act, and was liable to the five per cent, duty; that none of the machinery was for gold saving' purposes or processes within the meaningl of the Act; and that if any part of the machinery was for such processes, then that no portion of the ore crushingl machinery or the machinery for any purpose incidental thereto was within the .meaning- of the Schedule A. machinery for gold savingl purposes or processes.

Charles Rhodes, secretary to the plaintiff Company and also the Woodstock' 10., deposed that he was a metallurgist, and had large exeprienee in mining and gold saving operations, lie described the various processes for extracting gold from quartz, and said that shoes and dies were scraped to get. the gold off, and so came within the meaning of 'gold saving machinery.' He was of opinion that the machinery in dispute was gold saving machinery. .fames Alexander Pond. Government analyst, was examined at some length on gold saving* processes. The machinery in question was used in the various processes for extracting the gold from the quartz.

Alexander engineer to the plaintiff company, said the machinery was imported for saving the gold.

Henry A. Gordon, mining engineer, said there were articles similar to those in dispute in the Woodstock Battery. They wore used in the process of gold saving. Witness described The systerii of treating the ore to recover the gold. The gold-sav-ing process commenced the moment the ore was brought into the mill. Witness (in answer to Mi- Cooper) said he had written a book on mining in which he put the crushing of the ore as anterior to the saving of the gold, and he classed the .saving of the gold as a. subsequent process after the gold was crushed.

Stanley S. Sorensen, mining engineer, also gave evidence in support of the plaintiff company's case. He said that the mechanical process prior to the other treatment was part of the, gold-saving process.

(Left Sitting.)