ERECTION OF DAM

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 70, 15 December 1932, Page 5

ERECTION OF DAM

Gold Company’s Application CASE IN WARDEN’S COURT Dominion Special Service. Dunedin, Dec. 14In the Warden’s Court at Queenstown application was made by the Amalgamated Kawarau Goldmining Company for a license to erect a dam on the Kawarau River, approximately a quarter of a mile above the Kawarau bridge and half a mile below the junction of the Arrow and Kawarau Rivers. It was stated that a number of objections hud been settled, but there were . four settlers with whom no agreement had yet been effected. Mr. Harlow, on behalf of (he objectors, said he would offer counsel for the applicants an opportunity for an adjournment in order that the engineers for both parties might confer.

Mr. Sunderland, for the company, said that in the circumstances he considered it would be better to have the legal points decided there and then, and start de novo if necessary. Proceeding, Mr. Harlow said the onus was on the applicants to satisfy the court that the land affected by the license was Crown land. He .contended that, it was not open for mining tor two reasons —the land of two of t ie objectors was freehold and ilie applicant had placed his pegs in that freehold, indicating that it was intended to peg; and the plan showed clearly that, part of the land had been pegged and that it was proposed it should be flooded. This pegging had been done with utter disregard of the provisions of the Mining Act, which required that the owner of private laud must first be approached for his consent to its being entered. Mr. Sunderland said he had no legal answer to give as Hie provisions of the Act were mandatory. The present position meant that a national proposal would be held up for a month. If it had been considered that a technical objection would be raised the consent of land owners would first have been obtained. Mr. K. C. Lewy, S.M., said there was no way of getting around the provisions of the Mining Act, and the application must be declared void. It would be struck out as the court, had no jurisdiction.

Costs and witnesses expenses were allowed to each of the objectors.