FORFEITURE OF A MINE.
(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent)
COROMANDEL, this day.
At the Warden's Court, before Mr R. S. Bush, S.M., the case Wells v. Bushell was heard. This was a plaint for forfeiture of the New ToTcatea Extended mine. Mr Cruickshank appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Walker for the defendant. Mr Walker raised the point that there was nothing to forfeit, as defendant had applied to surrender his title. Mr Cruickshank contended that plaintiff had certain rights which could not be taken away by surrender. The Bench upheld Mr Cruickshank s contention, and forfeiture was decreed, with costs, £2 13/. Another case, Wells v. Bushell, a plaint for forfeiture of the New Tokatea claim, was also heard, Mr Cruickshank again appearing for plaintiff and Mr Walker for defendant. Evidence fo r the plaintiff was given by Messrs Wells and Cope. For the defence Messrs Radford and Holgate gave evidence, which went to show that only two men had been employed on the ground, instead of five. Defendant was fined i 3 3/ and costs, £3 3/.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19010417.2.13.4
Bibliographic details
Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 90, 17 April 1901, Page 2
Word Count
177FORFEITURE OF A MINE. Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 90, 17 April 1901, Page 2
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Auckland Libraries.
Log in