DAM IN THE KAWARAU

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21828, 15 December 1932, Page 14

DAM IN THE KAWARAU

APPLICATION FOR LICENSE COURT NO JURISDICTION (Special to Daily Times.) QUEENSTOWN)'December 13. On the Calendar in the Warden’s Court, Queenstown,-this morning, was the application, of the. Amalgamated Kawarau Gold Mining Company for a license for a dam situated on the Kawarau River, appioximately a quarter of a mile above the Kawarau bridge and approximately halt a mile below the junction of the Arrow and Kawarau Rivers. (The application, originally, was to have been heard at Cromwell, but was ordered by the warden there to be transferred to the court at Queenstown.) Mr E,' C.-Levvey, warden, presided. ,* ’H .... i‘> , , Mr T. E. Sunderland (Alexandra) appeared for the applipant company and Messrs W. A. Harlow (Clyde) and G. H. M'Kay (Queenstown) for the objectors, numbering 13. ...... , Counsel for the applicants stated settlements had been come to in respect of the following objectors: —Cromwell Development Company, H. M. the King, Lake County Council, Messrs A. Buchanan, JJ. M. Boyd, M. Urquhart (Lower Shotover),.and T. A. Fitzgibbon (Arrowtown). Others whose objections were to be submitted to arbitration were Messrs Watt Bros. (Frankton and- Gibbston), and J. T. M'Bride- (Lake Hayes). Four settlers with whom no agreement had yet been effected were Mrs E. ,C. Lee ( Threepwood,” Lake Hayes), 'Messrs J. P. Brown (Lower Shotover)Robert Shaw (Arrow Junction)', and H. Mackenzie and Sons (Walter Peak Station, Lake Wakatipu), Appearing on behalf of Mrs Lee, Mr Harlow said his client was the holder of a very valuable pipe line crossing the Kawarau River .and laid, on land that would be flooded by the operation of the proposed dam. Some 2500 feet of this pipeline on the flat land (over which she had an easement), would be subject to the flood waters. Some proposals regarding the shifting or raising of the said pipe-line would require to be submitted to his client, but nothing concrete had been forthcoming till 10.15 that morning by the company’s engineer.- Quite obviously his client would want to consult an engineer before accepting, these proposals, but there had been no time to do so, and the estimated cost of £2OOO was totally inadequate. Again, there was the important question of the foundations of the. proposed structure to carry the pipes. This was a matter calling for engineering skill. Full plans and specifications should have been submitted. At the present time the applicant -was a limited liability company, and was a concern that might flourish or possibly might die; and unless the objector was fully satisfied regarding the foundations referred to, the renewal of same, and the maintenance of the pipeline, she might possibly find herself in an unfortunate position later on. Counsel had certain non-suit points to submit, but he would first offer counsel for, applicants an opportunity for an adjournment,in, order that the engineers for both parties might confer. . In reply, Mr Sunderland said there was no guarantee that in the event of an adjournment the same legal point would not be again raised, seeing that the objectors’ attitude had been antagonistic.In the circumstances, he considered it would be better to have the legal points decided there. and then, and start do novo, if necessary. . Proceeding, Mr ; Harlow said the onus was on the! applicants to satisfy the court that the land affected was Crown land. He contended that 1 it was not open for mining for two reasons: The land of, the objectors, Shaw and Brown, - was hold, and the applicant had placed his pegs in that freehold, indicating that it was intended to peg, and the plan showed clearly that part of the land had been pegged and that it was proposed it should be flooded. This pegging had been done with an utter disregard,of section 93b, sub-section 2 of the Mining Act, which required that the owner, of private land must-first be approached for his consent to its being entered, and failing the obtaining of ..such consent the . applicants, must apply to; the warden for permission to enter and peg. . . V , , , Mr Sunderland said he had no legal answer to give, as the provisions of the Mining Act were mandatory. Applicant s instructions were that it. was unlikely that there would be any difficulty inarriving at a settlement.. It meant holding up a, national proposal, for a month,, and,he assumed that the matter would have been’settled and , the legai position, waived. If it had been considered that counsel for objectors would have < taken any technical objection the consent the owners to enter their land would first have been obtained. It was made clear at the outset that so long as the settle s themselves received fair and reasonable compensation the application of the com pany would be given every assistance. The warden said the court must tal e judicial note of the point. There was io way of getting round .the provisions of the Mining Act, arid the application and'issue must be declared void. If the application was bad in the case of o objection it was bad in them all. . The application would be struck out, as the court had no jurisdiction. , .3 . Mr Harlow asked that costs should be allowed to the objectors, who had been put to considerable trouble and expense in investigating the position and taking advice. Counsel had had the handling of eight objections, which had entailed a good deal of work. The - court allowed witnesses expenses (£1 Is each) and solicitors fees °n The scale of £2 2s in respect of each objec tlo Mr James Ritchie, chairman oL dire*; tors of the Amalgamated Kawarau Gold Mining Company, and Mr Hugh' Victorman (Wellington), consulting engineer to the company, were present in the co during the hearing*