THE COURTS.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume XXII, Issue 1117, 30 April 1891, Page 3

THE COURTS.

THE WARDEN'S COURT, NASEBY. Tuesday, April 28, 1891. (Before S. M. Dalgliesh, Esq., Warden.) MnnNa^PßivaEOES. The following applications for mining privileges were dealt with:— , Patrick Fennessey, protection for 40 days for claim in Home Gully, owing to want of water.—Granted. Sue Hoy and Sue Haug, extended claim of 2a. situate between Pokedown Gully and Cape Stiff Flat; also tail-race in Pokedown Gully.—Granted. John MTCay, water-race commencing in Idaburn Creek and terminating on the south; slope of Rough Ridge.—Granted. Elizabeth E. Baxter, residence site of la. situate at Wet Gully, at present in the occupation of Robinson Baxter.—Granted. In the matter of Lung Shun long's application for an extended claim situate in the cultivated paddocks of Messrs. Anthony O'Connell and W. J. Plummer, which was adjourned from last court-day, his Worship stated that he had visited the ground, and, however much he might sympathise with the objectors, he was of opinion that he"had no option but to grant the application without awarding compensation to the present occupiers of the ground.—Mr. Rowlatt asked that the applicants should be ordered to save the soil for the objectors; but his Worship replied that he could not see his way to make an order to that effect. He thought, however, the Chinamen should assist the present occupiers as much as possible, for it was rather hard for the latter to have the land taken from them after expending so much in its cultivation ; but it was very clear they had no legal title to the ground, and therefore the application would be granted.—Mr. Rowlatt then asked that a reservation should be; made giving the objectors leave to remove the soil- a course to which Mr. M'Oarthy (for the applicants) consented—and his Worship expressed his entire willingness to do this. R. R. Hore, James Hore and J. T. Geddes applied for a right to divert four Government heads of water from Home Gully at a point about one mile above Mr. Mackenzie's fence.—Mr. William Kerr (who appeared for the Mount Ida Water-race Trust) objected to the granting of the application on the grounds (1) that the Trust have spent the sum of £l5O in forming a channel in the centre of Home Gully to facilitate the discharge of tailings; (2) that the effect of granting the application would be to cause the tailings to silt up in consequence of the water being diverted from the channel. —Mr. Kerr said he was certain that if the application were granted the mining industry would be considerably hampered. Home

Gully was the general outlet for the discharge of tailings from workings extending over a large area of country. If the water were diverted the silting-up on adjoining lands would render the Trust liable for damages at the suit of the occupiers. He would also point out that the water was absolutely necessary for carrying the tailings away, as there was no natural water in the gully, and the Trust had to rely on water put in the gully artificially, as it were, for flushing the tailings.—E. Wood, manager of the Mount Ida Water race Trust, deposed that the first intimation he had of the application was through the columns of The Chrosicle, and he immediately served a notice of objection on the applicants. Home Gully was used for the discharge of tailings, and he had been informed that there existed an actual tailings reserve two chains in width the entire length of the gully. The which it was proposed to divert the water was within the reserve. The Trust had expended the sum of £l5O in the formation of a channel to carry the tailings down the gully. Most of the waterjinthe gully was discharged from the tail-races of miners. Taking the water applied for would cause the tailings to sHt up, as there was very little fall iu the gully. Miners were gradually working down the gully) and the diversion of the water would cause a deposit Of tailings on the ground which would probably prevent its being worked. The tailings would also encroach on other people's property. He had received general instructions to object to applications such as the present.—ln cross-examination the witness admitted that the matter had not been brought before the members of the Trust, and he had not received special instructions to lodge an objection to the application, but had taken steps solely on his own responsibility as manager for the Trust. (His Worship here remarked that he thought Mr. Wood's action in objecting was certainly wtthin the scope of his duties.) He did not know of his own knowledge that the channel iu Home Gully was constructed by the Trust, but had been informed by his predecessor (Mr. Johnstone) that such was the case. He had never seea the plans of the tailings reserve, but he understood reserve did exist. He lodged the objection before he saw the exact spot at which it was proposed to divert the water. It would be quite impossible to take water out of the gully without hindering mining operations. Sometimes there might be 20 heads of water running down the gully, while at others there might be none at all. The average would probably be seven or eight Hogburn heads. The Extended Company and the Hit-or-Miss Company occasionally discharged a little water into the gully. Witness would object to the diversion of even the smallest quantity of water. —ln answer to Mr. Kerr, witness said that in handing over control of the property, the late manager specified the channel as being a portion of the property.

The time when applicants would probably require to divert the water was the very time when the supply would be 6hort and every drop would bo absolutely necessary for carrying the tailings down tho gully.— Reuben Hore, one of the applicants, deposed that he was a farmer and had resided at Home Gully for 12 years, previous to which he had worked at Noseby aa a miner for many years. There was very often a "tremendous quantity of water running down the gully, it being Bometiiues six to eight feet wide and four or five inches deep. He was of opinion that there waß considerable fall in the gully, and this opinion was strengthened by the fact that the channel made by the Trust was originally cut only spade-deep, while in places it was now seven or eight feet. Although they had applied for four heads, applicants would be content with a grant for a lesser quantity. They would probably only require it for two or three months in the year, and perhaps no more than two or three days per week during that period. ApDlicants would probably store the water in one of the blind gullies, so that it would not be necessary to travel two or three miles to turn the water on and off. Witness had had 15 years' experience in managing tail-water, and he gave it as his opinion that the diversion of the water would not make the slightest difference to the discharge of tailings, as, even if they did slightly silt up, the first shower of rain would render the channel tho same as before, aB the tailings wcro very fir.c. Tho nearest claim being worked was two or three miles above the point of thfi propo«ed diversion.—ln crossexamination by Mr. Kerr, witness admitted that the dry season was the only time when there was little ; water in the gully, and any diversion of the water ( would diminish the power of the gully for carrying tailings. The object of the Trust in constructing the channel was to provide a freer flow for tho tailings. I There was a tailings reserve in the bed of the gully. To Mr. Rowlatt: When witness took up the land at present occupied by him there was a largo stream of 1 natural water flowing down the gully, which drained > a very °i|t watershed.—Mr. Rowlatt said that he had . another witness, but as his evidence would be similar to that already given, he would not take up tho time of the court by examining him." He would very J much like, however, if.his Worship would adjourn tho l application until next court-day and in the meantime ; visit the ground.—His Worship said he had no ohjeo- " tion to do so If Mr. Rowlatt thought it would

strengthen the case of bis clients- He might say that, from the evidence adduced so far, he was not inclined to grant the application. It was in the interests of the whole community that every drop of water should, if possible, be utilised, but the Trust had expended a considerable amount of money and they must not be rendrred liable for damages. He thought the Trust would probably be willing to xanction the taking of a small quantity of water at wrt»in times if th»y were consulted. He would ad

Journ the application, and take the earliest opportunity of visiting the ground. ■i»W. J. Plnninier applied tor an occupation license of 16 acresi in Home Gully, about five acres consisting of old workings and three acres of the claim granted to Sung Shun Tong and others.-He was granted seveu acres, at Is. per acie.