PROSPECTOR'S APPLICATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22204, 6 March 1934, Page 4

PROSPECTOR'S APPLICATION

WARDEN’S DECISIONS QUESTIONED

APPEAL BEFORE SUPREME COURT.

In the Supreme Court yesterday, his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy was engaged in the hearing of an appeal on law under the Mining Act, by Thomas James Samuel and William Samuel (both- of Lauder ) against the decisions of wardens in respect of an application for a prospecting license by Robert Ellis Harding, solicitor, of Wellington. Mr F. B. Adams, and with him, Mr F. J. Green, represented the appellants, and Mr J. C. Parcell the respondent. Decision'with regard to a notice of motion for the removal of a special case stated into the Court of Appeal, was deferred by his Honor until the hearing of, the appeal was concluded. In opening Mr Adams explained that application had been made to the warden (Mr H. J. Dixon) for a prospecting license over 100 acres, and objection had been taken to the application dn various grounds. The first objection was based on the fact that the applicant had, before entering and pegging out the property, failed to obtain the leave of the warden, and the appellants also claimed that if the license were granted, the applicant should be liable to give security for compensation. The objections failed when placed before Mr Dixon, whose judgment amounted, to nothing more than a recommendation of the application for the consent of the Minister. The Minister’s consent was given, and the matter then came before a different warden (Mr Morgan) and again the question of compensation was fully argued. Mr Morgan held that compensation could not be claimed, thereby differing frbm the view held by Mr Dixon, so that a curious position had arisen in that each warden held different views on each of the points that were raised in the appeal, six other applications were dealt with concurrently between the same parties, but the granting of these had been held in abeyance pending the result of the appeal. The important point in the case was the question of compensation, for even if the appellants won on the point, of pegging out, they had been and. were even then, prepared to withdraw their objections to the applications of their rights to compensation wete recognised. Attempts to ascertain the rights of parties in such cases had become a tremendous burden. At present,’ farmers who had Occupied land for years were faced with mining venture promoters prospecting over their properties. Why should this be allowed without. land owners getting compensation?. The combined effect of the two decisions of the wardens was to put the proprietors of small grazing runs in the same position under the Mining Act, as if their properties were unalienated Crown land, ... , Counsel- went on to quote at length from legal authority in support of his argument, Mr Parcell said that the respondent was not objecting to paying compensation. The appellants were entitled to this provided they could prove that they had suffered damage. Whether they were entitled to Security, however, was another matter. Mr Parcell proceeded to quote the law on the subject and was addressing the court when the adjournment was taken. The hearing of the appeal will be resumed to-morrow.