THE MIDLAND RAILWAY ARBITRATION.

Evening Post, Volume L, Issue 132, 2 December 1895, Page 3

THE MIDLAND RAILWAY ARBITRATION.

The Midland Railway Arbitration Court ' continued its sitting this morning. The Company filed a Hat detailing the proclamations as to tinning reserves to whioh objection was taken on the ground that they were not made in accordance with the oontraot. The list inoluded all but ■ eight of the reserves made. With regard to Block 54, Nelson district, the Company i objeots that 380 aores of it contains valuable deposits of boal covered with valuable timber. Mr. Gully, on behalf of tho Crown, prior , to the Company leading evidence as to the mining reserves and timber rights, objeoted generally that the rights of the Company as to timber only applied to lands reserved for mining purposes Mr. Cooper, for the Company, urged that ' the right of tho Crown as regards timber and mining reserves is the exception under the oontraot, and, thereto; e, but for the ( right through three reserves, it would have I been necessary for the Crown to reservo all 1 timber witbin the authorised area for tho ( benefit of the Company. ; Mr. Gully also raised the point in oonnection with the mining reserve*— first, that the opinion of the Governor that they were required for mining purposes was conclusive, and that there is no power to review any act founded upon that opinion ; and, secondly, that evidence which merely shows that reserves on some portions of them are not Auriferous is not sufficient, but the company must show that the reserves were not only wrongly made, bnt that they were made mala fide. Shortly, to justify its olaim on account of the reserves the Company must ■how that there waß fraud in the contract or in the carrying out of the oontraot. The Hon Mr. Blake said that with regard to several of the points raised by the Company, the first was as to the section of the oontraot with regard to the mining reserves being ambiguous, and therefore requiring parallel evidence to explain it. He did not think there was any latent ambiguity. He would not at present object to snoh evidence being tendered, but when it was tendered he would require argument, and his view now was that he would not reoeive snoh evidence. The seoond was that the proclamations not having been made nnder the Mining Act were therefore void, bnt it seemed to him that there was a reference in the notification to other powers, and that fettled it. Therefore he saw nothing in this objeotion. Ihe contention of tho Company that, the power to reserve being exceptional, it rested with the Crown to justify its aotion and show proof of auriferous character, ho did not agree with, as he believed that it rested with the Company to show that the opinion of the Crown was not a proper exeroise of opinion. The Company further contended thatmining reserves nnder the contraot should have been made with regard to requirements existing at the time, and not, aB the Crown had done, and he understood the Crown held that v it had a right to oonsider what futnre mining interests might require— even the distant future- in regard of payable auriferous country. Mr. Gully said that was the position of the Crown, except that it did not admit that the reserve must be '* payably " auriferous. Mr Blake said that of course the Crown claimed to consider as well futnre developments of eoonomio scienoe with regard to mining. Mr. Golly said that they olaimed also the right to consider the interests of the mining industry other than the requirements for bona fide mining purposes. Mr. Blake said of course there would be the right to reserve lands for races, batteries, and such things Besidenoe sites had also been mentioned, but he would not express an opinion as to these jnßt now. Then there was the proprsition of law that this construction of the Crown was wrong, and that the oontraot only warranted reserves having regard to requirements in existence at the moment. Mr. Cooper— That is so Mr. Blake— This would not be mala fides, bnt a bonafide error in the construction of the contract, and as it is not an issue of fact there is no necessity to express an opinion on it at the moment. There was also the contention that the contract required special notification of intention to' reserve in eaoh case, while the Company olaimed that the Government, through making notification from week to week, had decided all along to take all these reserves The first proposition, he thought, was admitted, as there was correspondence showing intention to proclaim from time to time, bnt as to whether this was sufficient to bring the Government within the terms of the oontraot he would not express an opinion. As be desired to keep open anything it was not necessary to deoide at once, he did not intend to express an opinion to-day on the question of law. Then there was the question of mala fides on the part of the advisers of the Crown. He did not understand it to be contended that there was no bona fide judgment, though Mr. Hutchison put it as high as fraud in bis opening address. Mr. Hutchison said the oompany did not impnte corruption, bnt mala fides, or such gross negligence as to exolnde bona fides. Mr. Blake said that if bona fides were excluded, there must be mala fides, and on that point he would not now express an opinion, but would aooept evidenoe, as it appeared to be the only issue of fact. Mr. Gully had said nothing about the result of all this anpposing the other side showed damage, and though they must go on with the other portion of the ca«e and not confuae the ißsnes, he was most anxious to get evidenoe of the principles npon which damages were estimated. Mr. Gully said the contention of the Company wa* that the Crown bad only tho right to make reserves which oould be Bbown to be necessary at the time. Mr. Blako said he proposed that both sides should address from the evidence on this point after the main case was closed. He was not in any case deciding whioh side waß right and whioh wrong, bnt merely endeavouring to clarify the issnea. Mr. Gnlly said the Crown did not consider that it was only neoesaary for the Company to show negligenoe. Negligence was not mala fidet. Mr. Blake said there was nothing in the Company's contention brt mala fides. Mr. Hutohison said tiere were shades of bad faith. Mr. Blake said if Mr. Hutchison excluded bona fides he must impute main fides. He always had difficulty in understanding any distinction as to shades in bad faith. The evidence as to the mining reserves and timber rights was then begnn. Henry Young, surveyor, of Greymouth, gave evidenoe as to surveys, Ac, and Thos. Fenton, mining expert, described a large portion of the mining reserves as nonauriferous. Left sitting. |