THAMES NEWS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6097, 2 June 1881, Page 6

THAMES NEWS.

[FROM OUR OWN' CORRESPONDENT.]" Grahams-town-, Wednesday. YTAIHI. This district is still attracting a considerable amount of attention, notwithstanding the fact that the arrangements for erecting a battery contiguous to the claims has fallen through. It is not improbable, however, that another attempt will be made to rjrovide a battery either by the proprietors of one of the claims or perhaps by the proprietors of two or three conjointly. In the meantime work is proceeding in several of the claims, the owners of which appear to be quite satisfied that the district will eventually come to the fore and prove a steady gold-producer. The withdrawal of Messrs. Fraser aud Darrow from the first battery seheme caused a good deal of disappointment at first, but this feeliug is wearing away. The county road has been made good from the Owharoa to Waihi, aud there will now be no great difficulty in forwarding trial parcels to the Owharoa battery. The proprietors of one or two of the claims are about to avail themselves of this means of testing the value of the lode in their ground. The parcels hitherto tested have mostly been small, and although in some instances the results were highly satisfactory, in others the returns could scarcely have been considered payable. The Thames Advertiser of this morning contains a very sensible article upon the prospects of this district, in which the writer skives the claimholders some very good advice. TE AROHA. The prospects of this district, so far as goldmining is concerned, are anything but bright just now. The battery although working under great difficulty,, has disposed of one or two more trial parcels from different claims, but, unfortunately, the results have not been satisfactory. A parcel from the surface level of the Morning Star claim which was expected to prove almost payable gave a very poor return. The gold was all taken off the plates while the berdans, which were expected to yield almost as much as the plates scarcely produced a single pennyweight. . It is now thought that the parcel was scarcely selected carefully enough, and further trial from, the low level, over which more care will be taken, is about to be forwarded to the battery. The locality of this claim for some time past has been considered the most promising on the field, and the disappointment will be very great if the lode should prove unpayable.

SINGULAR DECISION. A rather singular decision was given in the Warden's Court last week. It appears that some time ago a party of men took up a portion of the old Crown Princess mine, adjoining the Prince Imperial Company's ground. This party commenced work near the boundary of the two claims, and after driving some distance, they were warned that they were encroaching on the Prince Imperial ground, but the pegs not being in the ground, the party continued driving. After repeated warnings, the party were compelled to stop work by an order of the Court. The drive was surveyed, and found to extend a distance of 27 feet 2 inches into the Prince Imperial ground. Last week the party who had put in the drive sued the Prince Imperial company for compensation for the work done, and notwithstanding the fact that the- defence proved that the drive was of no use to the company, and that complain snts were repeatedly warned they were encroaching, the Warden gave judgment for plaintiffs for £16 lCs, each party to pay their own costs. From this decision it will be seen that companies and claim-holders must keep their pegs in the ground, or else they will be liable at almost any time to be sued for compensation by adjoining claimholders, for work which may or may not have been unwittingly done, TENURE OF CLAIMS. Apparently the law with regard to the tenure of claims at any rate so far as concerns the claims, on the Thames goldfield. urgently requires alteration, or else there will be little security for mining property. As the law is being administered here at present, proprietors of claims in many instances have but a very uncertain title to . the ground they are working. According to the Act now in force it is necessary, in order to secure a good and complete title, that any party pegging off a claim should register such claim within ten days of giving notice of such pegging off at the Warden's office. L'p to within a few mouths ago it was usually understood that unless the claim was so registered, it was deemed unoccupied and open to anyone to take up. Now, however, the Act is read differently, and the act of pegging off a claim, whether notice of pegging off or not is given to the Warden, is supposed to give the person who pegs off the claim a title (although not a complete one), which will hold good for twenty-one years, whether he works the ground or not. Should lie neglect to register, and not work the ground, he renders himself liable to be fined for breaking the regulations, but does not vitiate his title. That such a reading of the Act is detrimental to the interest of the bona fab: gold miner, and also of the district will easily be understood" by the following illustration : — A pegs off a piece of ground, gives the necessary notice, but does not register, and finally leaves the ground without having done any work on it. Twelve months after, B, supposing the ground to be unoccupied, and ignorant that A had ever been near the place, pegs off the same piece of ground, and commences to work it. After several months' hard labour B is successful in discovering gold. Now, C, hearing of B's success, and knowing that A had originally pegged off the ground, makes application to "the Warden for the possession of A's ground. The application is made in the Warden's Court, and notwithstanding that B opposes it, pleading that he and he only has worked the ground, C and docs obtain possession, while B loses not only the.ground, but all the time he has spent in prospecting it. Extraordinary as such a decision appears to be, decisions have been given in the Warden's Court here in which the main facts were similar to the above. Mr. Warden Kcnrick's reading of the Act may be correct, and if so, he has no alternative but to decide as above ; but the result is, that the title to many of the claims on the field is not worth a "rap." It is just possible that the law might get behind lease-holdings, in which case the title to some of the most valuable properties on the field would be vitiated. It is therefore very evident that a radical alteration is needed. \ The difficulty is only connected with ground for which the title is not completed, and hence the above rendering of the Act seems all the more absurd and unjust. In the case of claims which are duly registered, and the title completed; the Act and mining regulations make provision for the Mining Inspector forfeiting such ground, unless it is properly worked ; but if the claim is not registered, apparently the Inspector has no power to act, and in his department, sueh ground is considered unoccupied ground. Recent decisions in the Warden's Court have created a most uneasy feeling here. The Inspector has been requested by several parties to forfeit all previous title to ground which they are now working, but this he cannot do, as no claims covering the ground have been registered. At any rate it is difficult to find any documents to proTe it.

Iu the meantime the present owners know not how long they may be left in possession of their ground. If nothing better can be made of the present ■ Act, the matter ought to receive the earliest consideration of Parliament, and something should be done towards amending the Act.