RIGHTS OVER CLAIM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18207, 28 September 1922, Page 9

RIGHTS OVER CLAIM.

ACTION FOR FORFEITURE. FINE OF £50 IMPOSED. fljy TELEOBAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] PAEROA. Wednesday. A decision was given at the Paeroa Warden's Court by Mr. J. H. Salmon, Warden, in the case John McCon.bie v. New Zealand Crown Mines, Ltd. This was a plaint for forfeiture filed by John McCombie, mining engineer, of Auckland. The Court was asked to decree forfeiture in respect of the Earl of Glasgow Special Quartz Claim on the grounds of failure to comply with working conditions or, in the alternative, the Court to find that the claim had been abandoned by operation of law. The warden said he was not satisfied that the Earl of Glasgow claim could be deemed to have been abandoned bv operation of law. There was no doubt that the company had throughout (he manv years of its existence—which embraced many years of faithful working —concentrated upon its adjoining claims to the almost entire neglect of the East of Glasgow claim. It might more aptly have been named the Cinderella claim. The authority showed that in the case of contiguous claims held and worked by one company it was permissible for the company to "concentrate upon some of the claims to the exclusion of others, so long as the labour conditions were observed as regards the total area of the company's claim, taken as a whole. With regard to the liability to forfeiture for breach of working conditions, there was no doubt that the company had rendered itself liable to forfeiture on this ground in respect of a period of over one month. Counsel for the defendant company had urged that this was a case in which the Court, in exercise of its discretion, should impose a fine in lieu of decreeing forfeiture. He was of opinion, however, that this was a. case in which discretion might be properly exercised and should be exercised in favour of the defendant company, and he proposed to inflict a fine. The company should be assist<xh in its declared policy to throw off the ground which it was not prepared to work, and the labour conditions would be strictly enforced as regards those areas which were retained/ As he had pointed out at the hearing, it was useless for the company to apply for further protection, and an application had accordingly been withdrawn. The defendant company would be fined £50, together with costs. The plaintiff had acted bona fide in bringing the*e proceedings. He had, moreover, established his case and he should be allowed a portion of the fine in terms of section 184 to cover reasonable expenses in connection with the case. An order would he made that the plaintiff be allowed £25 to be paid to fcim out of the una,