THE GOLDFIELDS.

Auckland Star, Volume XL, Issue 83, 7 April 1909, Page 3

THE GOLDFIELDS.

i I SOLTHBRX MIXING RETURNS i I The following telegram from Reefton! j was po-ted on the Exchange this after-' noon: — J Progress Mines: Crushed :!70S tons, yielded £43ytj, cyanided 2680 tons, yield-! ing ITOH. * " ; Wealth of Xatioiis: Crushed 1280 tons yielding £ 1620, cyanided 7SO tons' i yielding ,£7OB. j Blackwater: Crushed 1807 ton-, re-| ■ turning £4042, cyanided 1115 tons, re-i turning £'230. ! i j j WAIHI GRAND JVNCTION. i I ' {By Te'e^rraph.—Own Correspondent." I 1 WAI HI. this day. \ At Hie Warden's Court yesterday, the [ IVflih! Grand Junction Company objecte-i i ,to the sub-division of section' 403. Mr. | 1 Mueller npiiearrd for applicants, and iir. I ' Jackson for the company. Evidence was i ■' adduced tv show'that according to surveyed I 1 pliins tin- Royal lode ran under the sectionlln question, and it would b e ne.-essary to I sink :i shaft in that locality If tbe 'lode! ! ruined out anythiiij/f like expertatlou*. Mr. ' I Mue.ler submitted that the company had I I The fu'l .-.implement <.f special sites, Nvliicb ! I totalled son». 5)."> acres. Mr. Jacksou replied' I rliut about £li»X) hud been expended lv I purchusinir laud for special sites. Mr. j Mit.'Uer contemled that it whs an improper procedure which ullowed the company to ,i',jV.-t to such ca-es of sub-divi.slons where tht- section was held under residence site I license, pointing out thmv was nothing to 1 prevent the present owner from building all over the sc-tiou. lie submitted there I w:is no evidence to show [hat this particular 1 section was required at the present time j for a ?haft site. The '""arden. in giving .iu.Jsmfiit. said that the Mining Art resn.a- ---! rious were much stronger than the Act itself 'in this respect. In connection with the i land alrendj- granted as a raining claim. ■be should b.np r<i be saris-bed that It ■ ii< as oot required for mining purposes. In | 1 this c>i-e them was a strong probability! I that the section would be required for; mmmc purposes. Both r-ounsel and uia^is-| rnito admitted that rbo law relative to resi- | rlenre site titles imposiil hardship on n'si- i dence -Ito owners. A further argiimeiu ! I took pl.ic. and tbe Warden eventually derided, in view of the importance "f the j case, to reserve decision. I Iv connection with the above case, it j I may be pointed oirt that where mining j and residence site titles come intu conflict , the holder of the sec.tlou cannot sell por-1 lions of the property if the company on | whose ground It is situated objects, but j I rhc uM-ner can bui.'ri all over the property.: and if '.he company required the section for mining purposes the owner can claim full cmipensatlon. WAim. Appiicaii.-.n= for protect i<.n of the Main | Vein and Walhi Gigantic were forwarded ;.. iue Minister. Applications for protec-iU-ii of rhr- Waihi Trin.-e and l % rin<es= were rt-.-ommcud.-d. '