SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLI, Issue 31, 5 February 1910, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIvTL SESSIONS,, I (Before Mr. Justice Edwaifc. I A MINING-OFTIOIt After the "Star" went to ptes, terday the hearing was the action brought by Thomas j^M l Moody, mining and civfl against Samuel Hoey, farmer cine performance of an agreement '£ £nu;nt (Wtangarei) aPPealed for **! Expert evidence for the defem.. ' called with a view f prospecting work actually carried ™T by the plaintiff and Wl th him was not sufficient any reasonable certainty of the «??' ence of coal on the defendant's W^"' WjUjam Robert Dunn, . the Hikuraagi. Coal Company S rj£ acquainted with coal-mmht £5* Whangarei district, and had conaM able experience of prospecting. |rl£ Whangarei district the coaTteamfJ*!' very broken, coal being found in *J? ets. When some months ago ■ tions. were on foot for his take over the defendant's propS Z examined it, and reported that k'v opinion it had not been thoroaehh prospected. The evidence adduced fc» the plaintiff indicated the. noesihfliC but did not prove the existence of coaL Mr. Reed cross-examined at eomi length with, a view to shotraig that 'the witness' opinion as to the natu» 0 | the district from a coat-bearing pointof view was not borne out try- the- ictiia' of the Hikurangi Company. -••■ To Mr. Parr: He -was iatigfiea thi* further bores on Hoey's property' TeW necessary to prove the existence of ooaL To his Honor: His experience of tit district was that there might be oral all round the property, and yet naa* in it. Mr. Reed quoted from » Report by the witness, in which he. expcmed tb* opinion that -the various scanu wr» connected, though there might he tuft*. His Honor said the witness , evi&nce, to put it mildly, was not aoeniate.it was quite inconsistent with, what mi stated in the report. The plaintiff bad done the work, and somebody 1 eh* wanted to reap the profit., This case ought most emphatically to have been settled. He was not. satisfied with th» ■witness' evidence. The' witness pointed out that hi r to* report he recommended the sinking of two more bores. A plan, accompanied the report,- and showed that tkoee two bores were to be sunk on Hoey's property. Ernest William Tattler, manager foe the Northern Coal Ons-peay *t Kiri- ! 'paka, said he knew Ho«yVlufl.-' H« had not made a thorough etaininaijoix thereof, but had been eiunia the three ibore-holes, and waa Informed of ti« ■ results. The indication*. afforded bjj boring operations on adjacent propel ties would be favourable to tiie existence of coal on Hoey'e property, but would not he- absolute proof of its existence there. The land had not , bees thoroughly prospected. Another ■ boiil or two "in tae centre-" would be nucessaiy. Tier* -were iii facts before Tii-m to indicate a contimh ous run of coal through the district, in which, on the contrary, the m»tm were generally broken. Cross-examined by Mr. Reed: H» opinion in the report that tlieeeami might all be connected, but that then might be faults, was, in his opinion, » reasonable, assumption, bat the. position was quite a negative one. The country, was so broken that there wag no a* surance that they ran through Hoey , * property unbroken. As a matter of fact, there waa no reason for believing that the coal entered defendant , * jstoperfcy. After hearing argument Ms Honor r* served his decision and adjourned th« : Civil Sessions until Wednesday next at 10.30 ajn. .._; . ~ ~ ; "