Mining Judgment

Cromwell Argus, Volume LXI, Issue 3162, 11 May 1931, Page 5

Mining Judgment

An interesting suit for forfeiture was heard at last sitting- of. the Court at Naseby. Warden Dixon has now delivered' his reserved judgment as follows: — . .. This is a suit for lorfeiture ol a water race. It was admitted that all the allegations in the statement ot claim as to non-user and non-renewal are correct and that in an ordinary case it would be proper for a decree of forfeiture to be made. Defendant's counsel contended that as the defendant (Geoffrey) had not applied lor a renewal of his license last year it had lapsed and there could not be a forfeiture and that the plaintiff (Scott) had not brought the proper proceedings if he wanted to obtain the water race. A perusal of the Mining Act, 1926, section 176, Subsection 1, Par. (I), and the proviso to subsection 2, however, satisfies me that though the term has expired the license is still in existence. Defendant could still have applied to have it renewed at any time during the next 15 vears (see in re McGrath, iyi7> G. L. R- 552), and the Warden can grant a renewal. The Supreme Court decisions in Lusick v Mellroy, 7 G. L. R 426, in re Maidman's and Halliday's application 14, G. T.. R. nb, and in re MdGrath, 1917, G. L. R. 551, are authorities for this. Decree of forfeiture will be made. Costs will be allowed plaintiff, Court costs 225, Solicitor's fee £3 3s, and witnesses expenses. Scott 355, Clough 15s. Mr Jas. C. Parcell appeared for plaintiff and Mr Fraser for defendant.

The flag fixtures commence on Saturday next. Cromwell A go to Wanaka and Bannockburn B to Lowburn,