GRANTING OF COAL LEASES

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 23110, 28 August 1940, Page 10

GRANTING OF COAL LEASES

DECISION ON DEFENDED APPLICATIONS [From Our Own Reporter.] GREYMOUTH, August 27. The Warden (Mr G, G. Chisholm, S.M.) gave reserved decision in the Warden’s Court at Greymouth to-day in a defended application for a coal lease in favour of an applicant, Alexander Clelland Jamieson, who applied for a coal lease over an area of 250 acres in Block 2, Mawheranui S.D., Block 14, Waiwhero S.D. The application was objected to by Blackball Coal Mines Proprietary, Ltd., on a series of grounds, but none of them was upheld, the Warden granting the application subject to the consent of the Minister for Mines. In the course of his judgment, the Warden said that the objection had been filed on four grounds. The first ground had been withdrawn and the fourth, even if it constituted a valid objection, had not been pressed. After reviewing the evidence on the fourth ground, the Warden said that he must hold that this objection had not been proved. The grounds of the objections two and three were closely rei lated and could be considered to- . gether. Two questions presented . themselves for consideration: first, were the matters referred to such as ■ the Warden should take into consid- , eration in deciding whether a valid objection existed; and second, if the ; first question was answered in the af- . flrmative. was the evidence before the Court sufficient to enable it to decide ; the issues raised. What the objector was asking, in effect, was that it i should be protected from competition , by the opening of a new coalmine. After referring to the authorities quoted in connexion with this aspect of the case, the Warden said that it appeared to him that the province of the Warden in dealing with applications and objections thereto was to confine himself to the consideration of mining operations, and in the present application he thought he would be going beyond his powers if he was to take into account the question of the result of further production of coal upon the New Zealand market and, incidentally, upon the business of the objector company. Having come to this conclusion, he did not need to decide whether the evidence would be ; sufficient to support the allegations ■ in the objection. He had no hesita--1 tibn in saying, however, that he would [ not feel competent to come to a de- : cision on such a question without ful- : ler information than was available in t the case before the Court. ; He agreed with plaintiff’s counsel that the question raised in objections ’ two and three was a matter of Government policy and therefore a proper question to be left to the consideration of the Minister, whose consent must be given before a grant by the Warden could take effect. He (the Warden) thought' his proper course was to grant the application subject to the consent of the Minister. Second Application Similar objections were raised by the Blackball Coal Mines Proprietary, ; Ltd., to an application made by Wil- ; liam Michael James Maloney and Robert Pirie, of Blackball, for a coal prospecting licence over an area of 30 acres. Block 2, Mawheranui S.D. After hearing evidence similar to that tendered in Jamieson’s case, the Warden granted the application subject to the consent of the Minister for Mines.