THE ARROW.

Otago Witness, Issue 1320, 17 March 1877, Page 6

THE ARROW.

The past week has been rather a busy one ia the matter of our Law Courts, and three caaea came on for hearing — two in the Resident Magistrate's Court and one in the Warden's Court — which have caused a very great deal of public attention and comment, as they involve some very nice points of law, while at the same time they do not place public virtue at the Arrow in the favourable light which one could desire in a small community. The caae3 in the Resident Magistrate's Court were Preston against O'Donoghue, a claim for £13, settlement of an old account. Amongst the items claimed was a sum of £11, represented by an old IOU, which the defendant denied having signed in a most decided manner. The Magistrate, Mr W. L. Simpson, at this stage of the proceedings naturally became very indignant, and gave as his opinion that one of the parties to the suit would most likely find himself on the criminal side of the ' Court. A3 the plaintiff was unrepresented by counsel, and bad not clearly stated his case, he (ths Magistrate) would grant an adjournment until the next Court day, which adjournment was gladly accepted. The second case was Hoolighan against Barker, a claim for £2, the value of some eight ducks killed by the defendant, he having fcund them trespassing in a small paddock of oats, his property, and had given due notice of the slaughter of the innocents fio the Poiice, as required by the Pig and Poultry Nuisance Ordinance. After a long quibble upon the value of ducks, which was calculated from a standard of what price the Chinamen would give for them, defendant urged that plaintiff was in illegal occupation of the ground. The paddock in question contained an area of some four acres, represented by residence areas issued under the Goidfields regulations. The question involved was — Can a man in occupation of ground, not being a freeholder or leaseholder, and only having it fenced by posts and rails, avail himself of the Pig and Poultry Nuisance Ordinance when he finds animals destroying his property 1 A third case was disposed of, and which is of considerable importance to gold miners in particular. It was.fhowever, the old, old story of one man , being sued for the tucker account of his tent or hut mate. hiom. the evidence, it appeared that a miner named Bradbury, resided and "lived with another named Harrison, and that while doing so, a debt for provisions, &c., - amounting to I £24, had been incurred. Upon a dissolution of partnership, Bradbury" paid to the' storekeeper" who : supplied the goods half of the' amount, and obtained a receipt alleging that at ■ the same time having r paid the storekeeper a smaller account made out personally to himself, his liability for tlie proportion of Harrison ceased. Harrison was called in ; evidence, and acknowledged) the debt, but expressed hi« inability to pay, but promised to do so as sooa as he had the means. The storekeeper declined to accept payment upon those terms or to shift the liability from Bradbury. The i magistrate, while acknowledging the hardship inflicted upon the defendant, showed by. a short resume of the law of partnership that' he had no alternative bat to give a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. He would, however, allow one month for payment. Verdict i accordingly. The Wardens' Court case was that of Cope and party against Williams and party, or rather there were two cross actions. One was for the cancellation of a certificate for a prospecting claim, on the Darfc of Williams ; the other for £100 for trespass, claimed by Cope in consideration of Williams having marked out a second prospecting claim, a large portion of which was within the claim held by Cope. The evidence taken in the case for the £100 damages sufficed for both. The real gist of the dispute was this, that I some time in May last, Cope, in company | with several others, formed a prospecting party on the co-operative system,some of the shareholders residing in Dunedin, some at Cromwell, and some at the Arrow. They took up a claim which they called the Premier, and for which they obtained a certificate under the Mining Regulations. The claim was worked until the frost set in, when work was rendered impossible. After the expiry of the protection certificate in October last a meeting of some of the shareholders was held upon the ground, and it was decided that further operations should be proceeded with. A hut was built for the workmen, and some tracks cut or repaired, which occupied the time until Christmas, when Cope, who waa the managing and resident partner elected to go to Dunedin for the holidays, but before he went he engaged tyro men to work in the claim. They were to commence at the expiration of the holidays—the first Monday after the New Year — and to continue on uniil he returned in a week or a fortnight afterwards. Two of the shareholders were to set in and drive a tunnel at the lower end ot the claim, near a gully. Cope returned to Arrowtown on the 16th January, when he received a note from j the men stating that they had found a new reef, and that they had applied for a prospecting claim on the 15th, the previous day. On the 20th, Cope, in company with one of the Dunedin shareholders, visited the Premier claim, and found that some persons had removed nearly all their pegs, and had, besides, obliterated their landmarks. The men employed to work, having' left the ground, Cope, believing that the workmen had done this, left Hoffman, the Dunedin shareholder, who had originally worked out the claim, to replace the pegs, and cut new trenches, while he went to seek after the workmen, whom he discharged from his employ on the 22nd, the Monday following. Cope based his ownership upon two grounds, first, that he was the original owner, and had never relinquished ownership ; and secondly, that ' the property belonged "to him, it having been taken up and occupied by men working in his employ, and to whom.] be had paid wages while so doing. Mr H. J. Finn conducted the case for Williams. Mr Cope

conducted his own" case. 'The' evidence,' which was very voluminous, and like, in all mining disputes; there was a good deal of cross swearing, occupied five hours in the hearing, the Warden reserving his decision. A very important question, both to miners and persons subscribing capital to prospect ground is, however, involved in this case. It came out in evidence that the jumping party having no means of their own, were backed up by a sort of joint stock company, mostly composed of Arrow publicans, who were to have something like one half of the disputed property, supposing the case was, won by Williams and Company, and whose only claim was that they had merely worked' out the ground which, as a prospecting claim, was refused, while all the work they had done in it was to break open one bit of quartz, Williams and party neither posses- , sing, save an old pick, either tools or tent. The matter for serious consideration ; is therefore this — Are the mining regulations so loosely framed that when the owners of a ' claim are absent the workmen working therein, finding gold, which of necessity they, are in search of, can "remove and obliterate their employers' marks and boundaries, and virtually dispossess them of their property ? If such is the case, unless ground is held by a mining lease and properly surveyed,' there ' remains no security whatever for outside capital to come in and assist mining ventures. Surveyors are now busy at work cutting up the Crown Terrace into sections for occu- _ pation by settlers. It is greatly $» .be desired that this disputed^ territory^ will soon be placed in such a condition that it will not be a constant bone of contention any longer. The squabbling, fighting, and bad feeling which has been engendered over this plot of land is something remarkable. The time, labour, and money expended over it would have placed one-half of it under cultivation. Instead of the Arrow people going in energetically, and claiming their rights by pulling all together in an. organised sensible manner, a sort of beggar-my-nfcighbour principle is resorted to ; consequently, tlie value of any achievement, when it is gained, is negatived to a considerable extent by the means resorted to to obtain it. . This is said to be one of the blessings of small isolated communities.. Writing on the Crown Terrace land applications in the local "horgan," a writersigninghimself " Audivi" hastheeffrontery to dictate to the Warden how and whom he shall have for his company by first telling Kirn that, both before and.atter the Court, he was surrounded by land-jobbers, and was ultimately driven down country in a carriage belonging to one of. that fraternity. In the fit st place, the applicants' - names as advertised for this land, I should judge them to be all -those of bona fide intending cultivators, while, as to their :<: < surrounding ,i ■tue" .Warden.' both 1 before and- -'after' the • - Court, it . could ; not 'be 'otherwise ex^ 1 pected , than that the < uncertainty of ever possessing a portion of ; this debatable ground, naturally, required ' more information than is given inthe Mining jßegiiktions, thus rendering a personal mtervieV with the/. .Warden one of necessity. As to the.Warden being driven' down' country in- the carriage of one of the fraternity, it is a positive untruth. No person here possesses such a luxury as a carriage unless a wheelbarrow; eipresa'wag- ! gon, spring 'cart, or dilapidated "one horse IjShay"" can, be called such.' ', The whole.' of tljis grave charge amounts ' to this— that 1 the Warden not being able to ■ avail himself of. the services of >the" coach to return ' to Cromwell, hired a buggy off Mr William Scolis, of the New Orleans Hotel, and who also keeps a | livery stable; the ,vehicle being driven by Mr Scolis himself: Mr Scolis'a offence was that amongst his customers' are numbered some of the applicants for the land in question. On Wednesday last the Warden held an Assessment Court at the Hospital, Frankton, for the purpose of hearing objections under the Counties Act, 1876. The whole ! affair, although looming large in the distance indeed in a mere bottle of smoke, some .valuations being altered to the extent of lSd, while a number of the objectors had not been served with notices of valuation in sufficient time, as required by the law. - This portion I of the County business appears to have been fearfully mismanaged. Many notices have not even been served as yet, while a number : of holdings have not been assessed at all, more especially where they were difficnlt of I access.