WAIOTAHI COMPANY V. THAMES DRAINAGE BOARD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11619, 5 April 1901, Page 3

WAIOTAHI COMPANY V. THAMES DRAINAGE BOARD.

TO,THE EDITOR. '

Sir,—ln your, report of the above appeal case, heard in the Warden's Court yesterday, my evidence showing why the Drainage Board did not accept the rate agreed upon by the assessors is entirely omitted, and in justice to myself and the Drainage Board, .whom I represented, I will, with your permission, supply the- omission. To enable those of your readers who are so deeply interested in our Thames claims to understand the case, I will give the clause in the regulations on which the assessment is to be based. It is as follows: "In making an assessment for the purpose of striking such drainage rate, the Board shall take into consideration: (1) area of ground held (2) proportionate depth and extent of workings; (3) amount of benefit derived either from yield of gold or other minerals, or enhanced value given by such drainage works." Mr. Metcalfe, in his evidence, showed how i the assessment was made. He stated: Percentage of the area, gold won, etc., were considered, and a common percentage struck. The question of area was given a proportion of three times the value of the gold won, and what was considered a fair ; proportion was given as to depth of workings and benefit derived from the operations of the pump." I stated-.The Board would not accept the above method of assessment, as they considered the amount of benefit, or profit, derived from gold should be three times the value of the area held. The Board also objected to the gross amount of gold being considered instead of the profit on the gold won. I also explained to the Court that a portion, although inside the drainage area, was outside the' "seaward slide," and that the manager of the "Victoria had written the assessors that there* was not more than 25 acres behind the slide; but it seemed they took no notice of it. I produced a plan, made by Mr. E. F. Adams, showing that only 16 acres 3 roods and 10 perches were behind the "slide," whilst all the Cardigan section was seaward ■of the slide . except one acre, 63£ acres being seaward. I showed that the regulations were gazetted in January, 1886, whilst there was a special clause introduced into the Mining Act, 1896, which prevents any claimholder penetrating the seaward slide without the permission of the mining inspector; and as that would mean the risk of letting in an influx; of water, perhaps more than the pump could cope with, the inspector would be hardly likely to grant the required permission, and so for any benefits derived from the pump, 25 acres of the Victoria claim, and 63? acres of the Cardigan, •■ "are practically outside the drainage area. I said the Board had been guided in a great measure by the assessment of 1899, when there were two Waiotahi representatives on the Board, only that we had reduced the Waiotahi by £95. I also referred to the fact that on the day we made our assessment, Waiotahi shares were worth 25s eaoh, tho value of the shares in all othei companies being merely nominal, so that it was the only company whose shares were enhanced in value by the working of the pump. In reply to a question by the Warden, I said I was of opinion that a large portion of the Thames Haurnki was outside the seaward slide, but Mr. Adams had not sufficient data to go "upon to place the lino of slide upon the plan. It is'rather a pity that we could not have had a whole day in Court, as the case only commenced at two o'clock, and the Auckland lawyers and others engaged in the case, wished to catch the five o'clock boat for Auckland.— am, etc., S. COCHRANE MaOKX.