Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WARDEN’S COURT.

Before Wilson-Heaps, Esq., Warden.) Wednesday, September llth. j Applications. .. J. Walker.—Coal Lease, Puponga. Withdrawn. (Mr Richardson.) Samuel Gilmer.—Ordinary Prospecting Licepse, Puponga. Granted. (Mr West). Golden Bay Dredging Company.Application for Recommendation to Minister for 12 months protection of Special Dredging Claim. Granted for nine months. (Mr Allan.) A. R; Guinness. —Surrender of Special Dredging Claim, Aorere. Withdrawn. (Mr Allan.) • W. 8., Travers—Surrender of Special-Dredging Claim, Aorere. Adjourned for production of License. (Mr Allan.) or.tections. G. H. Allan.- Extended River Claim, Aorere River, and the issue of a certificate of abandonment of license held by James Day. Objected to by James Day on various grounds. Mr Allan supported his own application and Mr Richardson for objector.

The grounds of the application were that Day had held the claim in question for seven months without doing any work on it, and that Day had continuously held and worked another claim in the Kaituna. The objector claimed that the wing dam and crates he had put in the river had been washed away by floods, and the river had never been low enough to enable him to replace them. He aiso claimed that he was about to work the claim when application was made for cancellation. The objector gave evidence on his own behalf, and Messrs Ellis, M'Lander and P. Burns for applicant. After addresses were given by both agents, His Worship ruled that there was no doubt the claim had been neglected and entirely unused for its proper purpose for a very long time, but Day pleaded, and pleaded with some justification, that natural contingencies had prevented him ■ from working the claim. This to some extent was true and sufficiently so to warrant him in imposing a fine in lieu of forfeiture of the claim. The holder would be filled £2 2s, and applicant’s costs, which were fixed at £1 3s. —total £3 ss. The Warden remarked that Day must proceed to work his claim from this date. complaints. Alb. Jeffries v. R. Ellis, A. T. Maginnity, and W. C. Riley.— Claim £l6 wages due for work done in connection with a reef at Mataura. Mr Hayes for plaintiff, Mr Maginnity for himself and W. ( . Riley. This case has been adjourned several times, the last occasion on Mr Maginnity’s application for taking the evidence of Messrs Riley and John Avery in Nelson. . This proceeding had taken place, and Mr Hayes opened the case for plaintiff at great length. The facts put forth by Mr Hayes in his opening address, were to the effect that in May last year, a party consisting of Messrs J. Avery, F. Trask, W. C. Riley, A. T. Maginnity, R. Ellis, and T. Coilier, entered into arrangements to prospect a quartz reef discovered on land held by Ellis at Mataura, the four first named gentle.men agreeing to pay £25 each. A party of workmen, of which Jeffries was one, was then put on to mine the reef, and worked there for forty days, being eventually knocked off by Mr Maginnity in writing, on the 9th July following. The contention of defendants was in affect that almost immediatly the men started work they werofor certain reasons ordered through Mr R. Ellis, but on behalf of the Syndicate to desist working : and that any work done after the date they were first ordered to cease work was done under instructions from Ellis, who was alone responsible for work done afterwards. ’ -

The plaintiff, Alb. Jeffries, gave evidence as to his engagement by R. Ellis to work on the reef, which he did for forty days, eventually being knocked off by letter from Mr Maginnity.- He had never asked any of the members of the syndicate to pay the wages, simply handing the acoount to Mr Hayes for collection.

R. Ellis one of the defendants, recounted the arrangements entered into between himself and other members of the syndicate as to prospecting the reef, terminating in his being appointed to carry out the work, and with power to employ Collier and two other men. He employed Jeffries and E. Irons, who both worked till knocked off by Mr Maginnity, after which no work was done. In the meantime, while the work was proceeding, members of the syndicate visited the ground including Mr Avery, who came specially from Nelson, and seemed perfectly satisfied with what he saw. In cross examination by Mr Magihnity witness admitted that he received instructions to stop all prospecting and knock the men off almost immediately after they started, and that Mr Maginnity bad told him he had done with the business as he considered lie had been grossly misled in the matter. Witness however considered that as members of the Syndicate continued to visit the lvif, knew of the operations going or., and refused to hand over to him when requested to do so, the agreements in

reference to the partnership, that they still recognised the existence of the .partnership. Mr Maginnity in opening for the defence said in justice to the syndicate there was no desire to do any injustice to Jeffries or any other workmen. The treatment received was of the very cruellest character, and he felt justified in taking advantage of every technical advantage which existed.' He proceeded at length to raise a number of legal points on which the plaintiff must fail to succeed. 1. That the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the case. 2. That all members of the partnership must be sued. 3. That plaintiff was not the holder of a miners right when the action was commenced. 4. That there was no mining partnership between defendants, as set out in the complaint. Mr Hayes replied at length. His Worship ruled on the points raised, as under: that the Court had jurisdiction ; that plaintiff must have a miners’ right, but this could be issued before the decision was given in the case; and that defendants were not members of a-mining partnership as defied by the Mining Act. The latter ruling amounted to judgment in favour of defendants Riley and Maginnity, whose names were discharged from the complaints. Mr Hayes asked for judgment against Ellis, who had engaged the men, and after some argument the case was adjourned till next sitting (16th October) on the application of Mr Ellis. An application for costs on behalf of Mr Riley and himself, made by Mr Maginnity, was refused, His Worship remarking that he would not gie costs against a wages man.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GBARG19010912.2.21

Bibliographic details

Golden Bay Argus, Volume VII, Issue 67, 12 September 1901, Page 4

Word Count
1,077

WARDEN’S COURT. Golden Bay Argus, Volume VII, Issue 67, 12 September 1901, Page 4

WARDEN’S COURT. Golden Bay Argus, Volume VII, Issue 67, 12 September 1901, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert