QUARTZ MINING DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 18602, 9 January 1924, Page 5

QUARTZ MINING DISPUTE.

PEGGING CUT A CLAIM.

MINER'S APPEAL ALLOWED.

A -written judgment was delivered by Mr. Justice Reed in the Supreme Court yesterday in an appeal from, the decision of Mr. J. H. Salmon, warden at Coromandel, not to • grant a quartz mining license in respect of a claim. known as the "Lucky Hit." The appellant, George Lindsay (Mr. A. H. Johnstone, instructed by Mr. E. T. Clcndon, of Thames), in making his application to the Warden's Court, had' failed to describe correctly tho land he ' had pegged out for the purpose of his claim. The warden was asked to amend tho application, so that the description of the land should conform to the description of the area actually pegged. The warden held, however, that na had no power to allow such an amendment, and accordingly dismissed the application. The warden had granted applications for the same land to Messrs. Hovell and Barclay (Mr. Burgess, of Coromandel). His Honor said that the appellant, on May 21, filed his application for a special quarts claim, and described the locality as "being the claim known formerly as 'Lucky. Hit,' and shown on deposited plan No. 6672 in the warden's office, Coromandel." As a matter of fact the land pegged out did not correspond with the boundaries of the "Lucky Hit" mino, but occupied a position diagonally across that mine. It was in tho shape of a diamond, nearly one-half of the diamond being within the boundaries of tha "Lucky Hit," the other half outside. If the miner inaccurately described the land, His Honor had no doubt that the warden had full jurisdiction to permit of an amendment of the application of the to make it a correct description of the land actually pegged out. Ho appreciated the doubt expressed by the warden as to whether, in the present case the effect of an amendment would not be to substitute a fresh application, but ho thought that doubt was based on too much weight being attached to the description in the application. He thought that the fact that the description in the application was not in accordance with the area pegged out in no way constituted a fresh application, but was merely a misdescription.

His Honor was of opinion that once it was clear' that tho warden had the power to permit of an amendment of the description of the area pegged the nature or grossness of the misdescription was immaterial. The question was then purely one for tho warden s discretion as to whether, in all tho circumstances of tho case, ha would permit the amendment. He hfld that the warden had full power and authority to permit an amendment to the extent that in his discretion he considered tho circumstances of tire case warranted.

His Honor allowed the appeal, with costs in tho Supremo Court of £12 12s and disbursements to bo ascertained by the registrar, and the case will be remitted to tho warden for further consideration.