WARDEN'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9039, 14 February 1891, Page 6 (Supplement)

WARDEN'S COURT.

FIIIUAY, V-SBirUAUY 13. (Beforo Mr E. H. Carew, Worden.) orposun avfmcation.

Applicuiion by li.iivjtr.i Mitchell for a license holding over senw-*-! 4, biock VI, and section 7, Keck VII, Nc-i.thcrn. This application was objected to hy William Dtlauev and eight, others, and also by James Blank, of Waikcuaiti. Hr Sim appeared ou behalf of Mitchell, Mr 'locking for Delaney and others, and Mr Fraser for Black. Tho case was beard on tha Oth inst., and yesterday Mr Carew gave judgment as follows:— " Objection* by Delauey and others.—The first two grouuds of objection aro virtually oue aud the same—viz , that the objectors occupy tho land by virtue of a license from the University of Otago. Tho land forms part cf what is known as tho Otago University reserve, part of which reserve or endowment was brought under tho operation of sill of tho provisions of ' Tho Mioitg Act 1866,' on the 20ch April 1890. Tho effect; of section 31 of tho net and tho proclamation is thai; from tha lastinentioued dato all the provisions of tbo act havo operation over tho land, in the words of the act,' as if the same had nover been reserved or granted.' That is, as I understand ifc, the land is thrown open for mining like any Crowu lands within a mining district. Section 34 does not seem to apply to tho circumstances of this caso, as the license was not granted beforo tho passing of the act, aud I therefore need not consider what the nil cot would ba if ifc wero otherwise, I think the objector's tit-la is not good against the applicant. If the objaofc or intention of issuing the proclamation was to enable those who held licenses from the uuivewiey to get titles under tho Mining Act, the objectors having themselves to blame for delaying for several months after the proclamation was issued to mark out the bnd and apply for it iv a proper manner. Tho third objection is that the application was lodged while au application for the land was pcocting before the warden. That ia a corroot statement of fact, but it was shown thafc tho land had not been properly marked out by the earlier applicants, »Dd thafc application was therefore refused. The regulations must bo read togflthsr, and it is clear that a proper marking should precede tho lodgir.g of ao application, and if that is not proparly dove I think Higgius v. Dyer (1' Jurist' reports, new series, M.C.) is an authority that the ;land is open to the first that complies with the regulations. As to objection 4, subject to any other objections to this application, tho applicants have s prior right to tho objectors. A*i to objection 5, I can only repeat the substance of what I have said before —viz, that if the objectors bave auy equitable rights they have slept too long over them, aod have brought thoir difficulties upon themselves. Objections nofc sustained." " Objection by James Black.—The question upon this objection is whether the regulations in respect to marking out the land havo been complied with. Glossop ond MitcheU admit they did only a part towards marking the land, and that they arranged with Clarke to complete ifc. Clarko :admifcs thafc ho cub one trench only 3fb Oin, snd thafc there was nothh'g to prevent the trench being cut the full sfb. Accor-liug to Black's evidenco none of the trenshrs complied with the regulations; bufc tho details ho gave of the measurements he varied considerably in cross-examination. Clarke admitted a deficiency iv respect to only ono trench; bufc the reason ha gave for cutting ifc only 3ffc 9in instead of sft— that' ifc was tco ninch trouble-, and fchafc was the long and fihorfc ofj it'—indicates a strong probability thafc he would not exercise much care or perseverance in respect to the other corners of the land. Mitchell's evidenco also tends to show tbe trenches were less than 4ft Oin long. lam satiEfied the land was not sufficiently marked. Objection upheld." Mitchell's application was therefore refused; costs were nofc allowed.