WARDEN’S COURT

Grey River Argus, 17 September 1941, Page 6

WARDEN’S COURT

YESTERDAY’S APPLICATIONS The following applications were dealt with by the Warden (Mr G. G. Chisholm, S.M.) at a sitting of the Warden’s Court at Greymouth yes te Wi& Thomas Blackmun residence site, one acre, Block 15, Wai whero S.D.—Withdrawn Barrytown Gold Dredging, Lt .. tramway, Block 5, Waiwhero S.D.— Gr john d ’ Gilbert Sinclair, special alluvial claim. 7 acres, Stoney Creek.— G water race, 10 heads, Stoney Creek—Granted. cf nr ipv J G. Sinclair, dam at Stoney C ree k.—Recommended for consent oi Mi G niS l er Hahn, two ordinary prospecting licenses, 100 acres and 48 acios, Blocks 3 and 7, Mawheranui S.D., and Blocks 4 and 8 Mawheraiti S-D. —Both granted. . , Ngahere Gold Dredging. Ltd twelve prospecting licenses, ovei 100 acres each, and one over 75 acres, bed of Grey River, north-east ol wor.L-hnii hrirlfrp. Block 3. Mawhera-

nui S.D.—All granted. OBJECTED APPLICATION . William Maloney and E redericK Fletcher, of Blackball, applied for a license for a road (being the old road constructed by the .Brian Born Gold Dredging Co., Ltd.), situated in Sections 53 and 2748, Blocks 4 and 8, Mawheranui S.D., for approximately 22 chains, for a term of three years. Alfred Hill, farmer, Ngahere, objected to the application, as holder of a renewable lease over Sections 53 and 2748. The grounds of the objection were that the Warden had no jurisdiction to grant the application, and that if he did have jurisdiction and granted the application he should impose conditions to deal with matters of compensation, gates, fences, etc The applicants were represented by Mr W. D. Taylor, while Mr F. A. Kitchingham appeared for objectors. Mr Kitchingham said that it was one of those cases in which applicants should first establish a prima facie case. Although the application was for a road, there was nothing in the application to indicate for what puroose the road was to be used, or bv horse or bv motor. The court was entitled to be informed adequately on those questions. Mr Taylor said that there was no need to depart from the usual order of the objector commencing his case first- ~ x, x • Mr Kitchingham said that in the question of the use of the road, he understood that it was to be used for the conveying of timber cut in that locality to the Paparoa and Blackball mines. If it was admitted by the applicant that the road was to be used for the carting of timber, cut in the vicinity of objector’s leasehold, it would be possible to form an impression of the objection as to jurisdiction. He also wanted to be sure as to where the road would end. The Warden: Of course, it is a fact that the purpose for which the road would be required is not disclosed in the application. Is it admitted that

the purpose of the road is for conveying mining timber? Mr Taylor admitted that that was the purpose of the road. Mr Kitchingham stated that there 1 was a road reserve on the north-east boundary of the sections named m . the application which was available and suitable for the use of applicants so that there was no need for them to use the old Brian Boru road. The Warden said that normally, il there was any likelihood that he would decline jurisdiction, there was no need to take the witnesses first. Mr Kitchingham agreed to go ahead with the question of jurisdiction and both counsels submitted lengthy legal argument in support of their claims. Mr Kitchingham submitted that timber-cuttin £ operations by applicants did not constitute "mining” under the meaning of the Mining Act, and therefore the Warden did not have jurisdiction to deal with the application. If the application were granted, it would render unsafe land under Crown lease, and a farmer, would be able to make a road through his neighbour’s property to take his produce to town. The Warden (to Mr Taylor): You admit that the road is not for mining purposes? Mr Taylor: Yes. I submit that it is not necessary that the road be for mining purposes, as the road would not be used for the conveying ol mine material, but only indirectly. The Warden said that he could not decide offhand, and he would reserve . the question of jurisdiction ’ Mr Kitchingham’s request to call Mr Tom Learmont, surveyor, ol' ■ Greymouth, was granted, witness ? producing plans of the locality and 5 giving details of the existing road ■ and another road reserve available > This road, he said, would be suitable , for snigging purposes. . n To Mr Taylor: The former (Brian 1 Boru) road would be a road most - economical and suitable for the con- ;, veying of timber. The Warden decided to hear all 1 the evidence of the case. Objector in evidence said that the

stock which he ran on his land was his sole means of livelihood. His farm contained about 60 cows and 40 sheep. The land was 564 acres. The best land was where the old road went through his property. Most of the land was cut-over bush, and could not be planted. He had trouble with people going through his property and disturbing the stock by nulling down the fences. He summoned the police from Ahaura, and the policeman found Maloney and Fletcher on his property, where they had no right to be. Lorries running on the road would disturb the sheep. Timber had been taken off his land recentlv by trespassers. If the other road were open, the timber could be got away. He cut mining timber for eight or nine years. He did not want people on his property for the sake of his stock. He could not see any difficulty in snigging the timber on the old road on the boundary. If it was decided that 'the Brian Boru road be used, he would require £2O a vear remuneration. , To Mr Taylor: The cattle and sheep would be scared, even if the lorries travelled up the road only once or twice a day. Another man

ran stock on the property when the Brian Boru Co. owned the road. He paid £lOO for the land on which there were no buildings. He bought the property a little over a year ago. To Mr kitchingham: He had not been paid for any of the timber taken. He was improving his property, erecting fences, etc. . Mr Taylor submitted that it had not been established that the objector would suffer any loss by the lorries travelling along the road. it was only for compensation for damage to ‘ his land that the objector could recover. He would oppose any payment of compensation. The question of damage to stock would be covered by common law. The applicant, W. Maloney, said that the props were required for the Paparoa mine. There was a shortage of mining props and of propcutters. There had not been any nold-up at the mines because of the shortage. On the other road the lorry could not be used, and the amount of timber handled each day would not be sufficient to keep the mine going The Brian Boru roaci was the only practical road to use. He was prepared to keep the road under repair. He would cart two loads a dav on the Brian Boru road. To Mr kitchingham: lie had been a bush contractor for 24 vears, and the other road was nothing less than a cattle track. Timber could not be .got out along the track, only nt a good expense. He would treat all stock on the road with respect. The Wai den reserved his decision after hearing further legal argument on the question of compensation and distances by both counsel.