MINING CASE

Greymouth Evening Star, 23 February 1917, Page 8

MINING CASE

reserved judgment

At- the Warden’s' Court, lleefton, on Tuesday, the Warden, Mr, T. Hutchison, delivered -hisr reserved judgment in the cask of the Murray Creek Gold Mining Company,'Ltd. v. The'. Consolidated Goldfields of New Zealand, Ltd., as follows: The plaintiff company, which is admitted to be a duly incorporated company registered in New Zealand, and the holder of a miner’s right, in it,j statement of claim sets out:

(2) That tho defendant is registered as the holder of portion of “The Golden Fleece” special claim under license No. 118, dated the 7th day of April, 1890, containing an area of 84 acres 1 perches, more or less, and beiiag portion of section 199 of Block XIV. of the Bee ft on Survey District.

(3) default hasi been made by tho defendant in the faithful observ- / ance of the labor conditions, subject to which the said mining privilege is held, and that such default has continued for a period of upwardn of seven day:i last past, and plaintiff claims a decree of forfeiture of the said portion of the .defendant company’s claim. The allegations are admitted, and the defence is that the claim is protected from cancellation under a cot lon 98- of the Mining. Act, 1908. That section, so far as it is material to the present case, enacts:

(b) In every case where two or more claims or other mining privilege:' contiguous to one another. . . are held by one person, it shall bo sufficient compliance with- the afore.

said labor conditions it the total number of workmen employed on any or more of such claims or mining privileges, taken collectively, is not less titan the total number proscribed for all such * claims taken separately; and sub-section (f) To the extent of one-half of the number of workmen which should otherwise be .employed, tho expenditure of capital snail be equivalent to the employment of workmen in the proportion of one man for every thousand pounds, of capital which, to the satisfaction of the Warden, has been expended by the holder of the mining privilege in plant or permanent works for the purpose of such privilege.

* The questions, therefore are: (1) Whether the claim sought to be declared forfeited is contiguous to one or more other claims or mining privi. leges held by the defendant company, and, it so, whether the labor requirements of tire sub-section, as set out, have been complied with. r J he defen. dant company’is the owner of two groups of claims 1 , which may be called the Golden Fleece Group and tho Wealth of Nations Group. In tho first group there are four claims, whose names and areas are as follows: The Golden Fleece, 81 acres 4 poles: the Boyal, 199 acres 2 roods; the Ajax, 17 acres 3 roods; and the Royal Junction, 35 acres 1 rood 12 poles. In the second group there are three claims, whose names and areas arc as follows: Wealth Extended, 99 acres; Wealth of Nations, Go acres I rood 13 poles; and the Energetic, 34 acres. These claims have been held by the defendant company for upwards of three years. Their total area is 472 acres 3 roods 39 poles. The defendant’* company has also- had granted to it,’ on May 9th, 1912, an easement —in a right to drive a tunnel from the Energetic claim to the Golden Fleece claim. The Golden Fleece claim is in actual contact with the Ajax and the Royal claims', and the Royal claim is, in turn, in actual contact with tfie Royal Junction claim of the Wealth of Nations group, while the other claims of that group lie in a series, i.e., the Wealth Extended,

the Wealth of Nations, and the finer, "otic in that, order, each in actual contact with the next in the series. There is therefore a concatenation of claims, beginning with the Wealth of Nations claim-mud ending in the Golden Fleece claim, all in physical continuity. ' No work lias been done upon the two •claims—the Ajax and the Royal—which are admittedly con_ tiguTnts to the Golden Fleece claim, since November, 1011, and the plant included in the expenditure upon the Golden Fleece group of claims prior to that date is practically non-existent now. Rut the defendant company has expended a large sum in plant and development wont upon the Wealth of Nations and the Energetic claim* of the Wealth of Nations group. ’The question then is, whether a claim not immediately,, but mediately only through a series of interposed claims, in contact with another 'claim, can he said to he contiguous to that other claim. The word' “contiguous.” applied to two claims imports ex vo termini, an actual’contact; and it ap. . pears to me to be whittling away the true* primary meaning of the word to say that it means “close to” or other dike meaning. But I am pressed by the case of Waihi Grand Junction Gold Mining Co. v. Dudeon (29 N.'Z. L.R. 409), in which it appears to have been held that contiguity does not neoeaarily mean actual contact in tlve statutory provision here in ques- , tion; and I am bound to follow that decision. In the- present case, however, 1 think that, having regard to the wording of the statute, “In every case where two or more claims contiguous to one another ' . . . are, held by the same person,” and the fact that there is an actual unbroken contiguity of claims all held and worked together by the conlpany, from the Golden Fleece to the Energetic and Wealth of Natiois claims, there is: a literal contiguity between these claims. I think therefor© that the defendant company, can rely upon work done and labor employed upon all or 1 any of the claims in serials contin- \ uity with the Gdden Fleere claim. I do not think that it is seriously con- i tested that, if this view is correct,. ] the defendant company .is protected ( by the provisions of section 98. The j number of men who, according to the j regulations, ought .to be employed i iipon the whole of the claims, taken < •together, is 106. There was, by ad-'j minion, iit?ver less than, 05, and

times a* many as 120 men employed weekly upon the Wealth of Nations group of claims at and for six montllj? prior to October 31st, 1916. And there has been expended in plant and permanent development work in connection with the Wealth of Nations and Energetic claims of that group, by admission, the sum of £173,132. „ 1 conclude that the defendant company is within the protective provisions of section 98 of the Mining Act, and that the present action must be dismissed, with costs to the defendant company, fees 2s and solicitor’s fee £5 ss. Mr. Patterson appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. Lawry for the defendant. ,