THE late "JUMPING" AT THE THAMES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume V, Issue 1344, 7 March 1868, Page 4

THE late "JUMPING" AT THE THAMES.

To the Editor of the Hekaid. Sir,— Yesterday's Auckland papers have just arrived, and I must confess I am not a little—and yet but a little—surprised to find how entirely yourself and your contemporary have mistaken tho real question here. On what ground are Hunt and Cobley to hold a valuable claim, held under an authority that Judge Moore has declared to bo no authority at ull ? Why, if Mr. Maokay cannot make an award ia the case of Butt v. Howe, should Mr. llnckay taio a one note, or one sovereign, or twenty shillings from mo for a miner's right that ia not value for the paper it is written on ? Is the law only made in New Zealand for people who have rich claims or long purses ? When William Alexander Hunt »nd William Cobley took out miter's rights they took them out on credit, not having money to pay for them. they divide £1050 a man out of their claim, for one month's work. May I ask, in tho mildest way imaginable, why I, who had a miner's right, paid for, at that precise time, have not as good a right as Hunt and Cob'ey to this claim, when I find that Mr. Mackay had no right to issue these rights, and I have since taken out others to make good the fraud of tho General Governmeufc, in taking my money under false pretences ? If there is law, let that law protect the man. who has not one ounce of golil in his claim, as well as it protects the property of Hunt. White, and Cobley—or the property of the Kuranui Gold Mining Company. If the Supreme Court, or its Judge, is warranted,in saying j that Mr. Mackay could not award to Capt. John] Butt his share in the gold taken out of a claim in which ho had been a shareholder long before the Kuranui <~!ompaDy believed there was a gold-field at the Karaka, thon I think many of us are right in paying that wo do not think, looking fairly ,at the Gold-fields Act, 1866, that Mr._ Mackay has any right to issue documents purporting to be a right to mine for gold upon this field. If anything could be a scandal upon the thing called tho Government of ITew Zealand, it would bo the fact that there ia no Warden, no Warden's Court; and that the Governor lias not " caused to be issued" miners'rights in conformity with the Gold-fi«ld* Act 1866, upon this gold-field. It is all very fine new to preach patience, and law, and order, and -all the rest of the stereotyped nonsense to men who see an independence within their reach. Do you suppose for one moment they will pay attontion to it ? I do not so believe ; I know the contrary. What nonsense it is to talk about Mr. Mackay having authority to do this that or the other. A short time ago the Supreme Court decided that a knave might sell an allotment four times and yot not be guilty of fraud ; now the same Court decides that Mr. Mackay is'not a warden, and that a man may Bwcar falsely and not be guilty of perjury, and yet j'ourselfand your contemporary ask us to be a law abiding population, at the time that we know that four thousand one hundred and lorty-one miner's rightß have be«n issued up to this day, and that those miner's rights have been purchased at a coat of £1 each, and yot are not worth the paper and glazed calico they are printed on ! Surely it is not intended to tell us here, that the Government having neglected its plain, patent, boundea duty, we are, therefore, to bavo to carry ovory question in dispute before Mr. Beckham, a man who knows nothing at all about mining laws? Could there be anything on earth more farcical than to take a pure question of diggings'law before a man without the slightest pretension to a knowledge ■of the subject brought before him? I see that you quote the 12th section of the Regulations. Of what value ; are these Regulations ? 'I'hey were drawn up by Mr. Mackay, and they were published by him in his capacity as a warden, tho very Interpretation clause being directly contrary to both tho letter and spirit of the Goldfield Aot, 1866. Rule No 1 is an infraction of tho Act itself, inasmuch as it says that the Warden shall do wh'it the Act says the Governor should do. A miner is to be a person holding a miner's right—and yet there is no one to issue such right. And the Goldfields Act sars that certain things are to be done by a Waiden in ft Court duly constituted, and yet there is no due constitution, and no Court. . I think theEditor of tho HekaljT> cannot have .read the Goldfields Act, or ha would have seen that it is drawn almost throughout to avcid having anything to do with > the tricks and quirks of the lnwyers- This Act is almost a copy verb, et lit. of the Victorian law ; and it was intended to limit, not to extend litigation. Correspondent. Shortlapd, March 4, 1868. [" Correspondent" is doubtless aware of his error by this time, and of the fact that Mr. Mackay, as Resident Magistrate of the district, was legally acting as Warden also when jhe issued the miners' rights. — Ep.N.Z.BJ