DISTRICT COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXI, Issue 5096, 27 January 1885, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, 'Jantjaey 26. (Befor(E>'His Honor Judge' Broad.) The Court delivered judgment in the Chinese appeal case as follows :— AH. VIS AND ANOTHER (APPELLANTS), jVH ' . HONE AND ANOTHER (RESPONDENTS). This is an appeal under sections .145 dhd:isl of the. Mines' Act, 1877, from a decfeion' of the Warden's Court, It dppears%hat the appellant and a wages inanhadibeen folding a claim nominally s&tiiree men's, ground, but actually con•BideraWy in excess of that qauntity—more ground indeed than could, be: field by four men. Fearing apparently gome kind of attack upon their holding, they invited a man named Ah Woy to join them, and they went, through the ceremony of fe-pegging the claim, leaving it, however, the same .size substantially as before. The appellants and .Ah Woy each had a miner's right, and : 'so had the wages man. There was no miner's right to represent the fourth man's ground save that of .the wages man. Immediately after this re-marking, : the respondents took proceedings in the Warden's Court against the, appellants, arid claimed all the surplus ground in excess of , the area that could- lawfully be '.held by three men; The Warden gave judgment for the respondents, and ordered the surplus ground to be given up as claimed. The fact of re-marking the ground is no doubt strong evidence, although not absolutely conclusive proof of the intention to abandon an old title, and to re-occupy under a new one, and where, as in this case, the sole question is whether there was an actual abandonment of the old claim or not, it is for the jury to say upon the facts, whether there was a bona fide abandonment and re-occupation, or whether the re-pegging was not done 3s a mere device to escape forfeiture, and with no intention of holding and working the claim as an entirely new one. There was evidence from which the Warden might so conclude, although perhaps another might not arrive at the same "opinion. Ido not think I ought upon appeal to disturb the judgment of the Warden upon the facts, unless I am satisfied he was clearly wrong. A question of law was raised as to the power of an employer having no miner's •right, to take up a claim by his hired servant who has one. I feel no doubt: "that an employer cannot possess himself of claims under such circumstances. The policy of the statute, is that a man shall only/be permitted to hold a limited number of claims, but if he could by buying ' miners''ri£hts for an unlimited number of " wages men,- take up as many claims. as^lie : pleased, he would thus be able to ' multiply himself indefinitely. Section 17 ; Beems intended to protect the employer of labor, by preventing a wages man from ' jetting up "any claim under his own . miner's right, adverse to his ' master's interest. I have given this ques- " tion much consideration, and am satisfied that the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is sound. This appeal will therefore be dismissed, and the, judgment of the Warden's Court affirmed, with costs, £31. HUGHES V. IMPERIAL INSURANCE COMPANY. This case had been adjourned upon a question of service, and Mr Warner now applied to the Court to re-consider the former ruling, stating that there had been some mistake in the facts stated to the Court. Eventually the judge said lie had no doubt as to his power to review his former ruling, the matter not having been finally dealt with. If Mr Warner's statements were accurate, he had been actually, although 'perhaps not intentionally, misled. . Notice must be given to the other side and the matter stand over to next sittings, with leave to both parties to produce such further evidence as they might think fit. RE JOSBPH ERRIDGE (a BANKRUPT), AND LEWIS MORGAN (A BANKRUPT). - Upon the motion of Mr Warner, these bankrupts obtained their discharges. RE PATRICK DONNELLY, AND KIM WILLIAMS BANKRUPTS. Mr Kitchingham moved for orders of discharge, but. as' the bankrupts did not appear the applications were ordered to stand over.