PROSPECTING ASSOCIATION

Greymouth Evening Star, 28 October 1931, Page 3

PROSPECTING ASSOCIATION

APPLICATIONS OBJECTED TO. That business men around the town, desired to open tip gold-mining on the West Coast, was one of the reasons given in support of 15 applications for prospecting licenses, each of 100 acres, located in the Mawheraiti Survey District, which were made in the Warden’s Court yesterday afternoon, by the Greymouth Prospecting Association, by its secretary, S. A. N. Sullivan. Six of the, applications were objected to by Stratford, Blair and Co. Mr J. W. Hannan appeared for the applicant, and Mr F. A. Kitchingham for the objector.

Mr Kitchingham said that the objection was based partly on the ground that Stratford, Blair ahd Co. were the holders of .certain tramway rights. That might be got over, by makinggrants subject to those rights, but it was desired to have the applications struck out, so that there would be no mining in that locality at all. The first objection was that the applicant was not competent to obtain a grant, as the regulations had not been complied with. The ordinary procedure was that an applicant should show that he was qualified and had complied with the regulations. The applications were made by the Greymouth Prospecting Association, by its secretary. One did not know' whether it was “fish, flesh, or fowl,” but it was certainly not an incorporated company. Mr Hannan admitted that, tn the face of the applications, they weie unable to proceed without amendment, and he contended that they were entitled to have the applications amended. Each of them was in the name of the “Greymouth Prospecting Association, by its secretary, S. A. N. Sullivan.” The applications showed the date and number of the miner’s right, in the name of Sullivan, who filed the applications. Outside the formal objection, there were no merits in the objection. Business men around the town desired to open up mining on the West Coast, and it was in the interests of the community that they should have their rights. Under Section 356 of the Mining Act, the Court had very wide powers of amendment. The sole objection to the applications was that the area comprised part of the land included in the objector’s tramway. The applicant had filed a declaration, stating that he was quite prepared to take a grant subject to any rights, on. behalf of the objector. Boiled "down, the objection was a technicality.

Mr Kitchingham said that he was still at a loss to know whether the application was filed for Sullivan, or the “other gentlemen who were anxious to help mining.” The Warden (Mr W. Meldrum) pointed out that the application was signed by the Greymouth Prospecting Association, per its secretary, S. A. N. Sullivan. Mr Kitchingham declared that the whole application was “BRISTLING WITH DEFECTS.” Sullivan’s miner’s right was not available for a /syndicate, neither was Sullivan qualified to sign the application. That could be done only by the actual applicant, his solicitor, or a miningagent. Section 356, he submitted, had no application to proceedings of this description. He had never heard of any case in which one applicant had been substituted for another applicant. In the absence of expressed power of that sort, the Warden was tied definitely by the form of the application.

The Warden referred to a Te.Arolia case of 1890, concerning an application by the “Ferguson Syndicate, by its attorney.” The Warden in that case amended the application, by scratching out the natne of the syndicate, and leaving that of the attorney. The Supreme Court held that he had the power to do that, and the appeal was dismissed. After further argument between Mr Kitchingham and the Warden, the latter said that he was only speaking from memory, with regard to the Te Aroha case, and was not quite certain whether he had the right to amend the application. It did not seem to him that anyone would be injured if an amendment were made. However, he was prepared to reserve the point. Mr Kitchingham said that the only other objection was with reference to the tramway, and he took it that the grant would, in any case, be subject to tramway rights. The Warden agreed, and said that such a condition could be incorporated in the license. It was only a matter for settlement between the parties. Mr Hannan: We are prepared to agree to that. The matter was adjourned for a fortnight, to enable the Warden to consider his powers of amendment.

WATER-RACE DISPUTEDONNELLAN V. DONNELLAN The application of Arthur Donnellan (Mr Kitchingham) for a waterrace license, to divert ten heads, commencing in Callaghan’s Creek, Block 3, Mawheranui S.D., and terminatingin Larkin’s race, was objected to by Michael Donnellan (Mr T. F. Brosnan), on the following grounds: (1) That the course of the water-race has not been marked out in accordance with the provisions of the Mining Act; (2) that the objector is the holder of a license for a water-race, granting him ten heads from Callaghan’s Creek; (3) that, under normal conditions, Callaghan’s Creek does not carry more than ten heads; (4) that the proposed course of the water-race runs through the area held by the objector under ordinary prospecting license;. (5) that the granting of the application will seriously hinder the prospecting arid mining operations of the objector. Mr Kitchingham said that the applicant was prepared to take a grant subject to existing rights, also to agree to a further condition that, if at any time, the objector, under the existing prospecting license or under any license for a claim which might be granted, required it, the water-race should either be shifted to another course, or piped or flumed, so that it would riot in any way interfere with the objector’s workings. The Warden said that, if a new grant were made, it. would be subject entirely to the rights of the existing licensee. Mr Brosnan said he thought the proper way would be a certificate of easement. The applicant simply wanted the right to use the water in the race. Even with the concession made by Mr Hannan, the objection would still stand. It was proposed to show that it was impossible for the objector satisfactorily to sluice his claim, with

a water-race running through it. The objector did not want to deprive the applicant of water, and suggested that the water-race could be easily and comparatively cheaply diverted. He put in a than of the proposed alteration in its course.

The Warden said that the rule was to impose conditions sufficiently to protect the existing rights of the first applicants. The holder of an ordinary prospecting license could not claim that lie had greater rights than the holder of an ordinary lease in perpetuity under the Land Act. There was iio doubt about it that the applicant was entitled to have his application fully considered, and, if it could be granted without injury to other interests, he was entitled to a grant. Michael Donnellan gave evidence, in the course of which he stated that he had as good a little claim as any on the West Coast, and had started to develop it. The granting of the application would interfere with the development. Asked by Mr Kitchingham whether, if the race were installed, and shifted on request, any harm would be done, objector-declined to answer, remarking that he would “leave that to his partner, who was cleverer than he was.” The partner was not called to give evidence.

The Warden said that.the Inspector of Mines had reported that there was no objection to the granting of the application, from a mining point of view, but pointed out that the applicant only possessed a prospecting license in the meantime, and recommended that the grant should be limited to two years, until the prospecting license was converted into something more durable. Mr Kitchingham said that such an application was pending, having been adjourned for survey purposes. ' The Warden stated that, if the grant were made for two years, an application could be made for renewal at the expiry of that term. Mr Kitchingham agreed .to take a two-vears’ grant in th.e meantime. The Warden said that there was no doubt the objector was entitled to have his rights protected, but beyond that, the merits lay with the applicant. The object of the Mining Act was to s encourage mining in all possible ways, so long as existing rights were not interfered with. The applicant had agreed to the insertion of a clause to cover the difference between the parties, and that would be included in the grant. If the parties could not agree on the conditions, these could be settled by the Warden. Mr Kitchingham said that there would be no difficulty about drawing up the clause. The Warden: Very well. Granted for two years, on those terms.