THE MACETOWN JUMPING CASE. [By Telegraph.]

Otago Witness, Issue 1324, 14 April 1877, Page 16

THE MACETOWN JUMPING CASE. [By Telegraph.]

(from our queenstown correspondent.)

The appeal case of the Premier Company (Cope and others, appellants ; Williams and others, respondents) was heard before His Honour Judge Harvey yesterday at Queenstown.

Mr Cope conducted his own case; Mr Finn for respondents. The decision of the Warden appealed appealed against was to the effect : — "Ist. That defendants did not maintain their occupancy, their pegs, and trenches. 2nd That defendants have altered the position of their pegs which mark the claim, and now seek to apply their certificate to a set of pegs which mark out a different and distinct claim for which said certificate was issued. 3rd. That defendants have not employed the labour required by the mining regulations to be employed in claims so as to maintain possession, and have not shown that they were exempt from doing so, by having a Warden's protection certificate. The Court therefore declares saidcertific^te cancelled." The grounds of appeal were— lst. That the finding oi the Warden was against the weight of evidence. 2nd. That up to one week before the date of complaint complainants were the servants of defendants, and had no right to use information thus gained to the injury of their employers, while at the same time no complaints had been made by other parties that defendants had committed any breaches of the mining regulations, or interfered with rights of any other person. 3rd. That no time was stated when the alleged breaches of regulations took place, and the Warden had no right to cancel certificate for acts some time previous to notice of complaint. 4th. That defendants were not all served with summonses t as required by regulations. sth. lhat defendants did hold a Warden's protection certificate exempting them from employing labour, ,6th. That if any breaches of the' regulations have been made the War-

den should have substituted a fine in lieu of cancellation.

In opening the case there was long argument on objection 4, which Mr Cope argued was fatal, shareholders at a distance not having been summoned. The Warden could not cancel their interests. It was ultimately agreed that each objection should be taken seriatim. After a lengthy argument, His Honour appeared to conclude that a Warden had no power to cancel a certificate for a prospecting claim, and that sub-section 4 of Otago goldfields regulations evidently referred only to block claims in alluvial,. which might be cancelled. He thought that sections 101 and 115, Goldfields Act, met the case. Section 101 provides ths.t every person committing any breach, whether by way of omission or commission, of any of the rules or regula. tions made under the authority of this Act, shall, for every such breach, be liable to a fine or penalty not exceeding £10 for the first offence, and £20 for every second or subsequent offence. Section 105 provides this : In all cases wherein forfeiture is, or shall be, decreed by this Act, or any regulation made, or to be made, in conformity therewith, it shall be lawful to substitute a monetary fine in lieu thereof, and to allow thereout a sufficient sam to defray any reasonable expenses incurred by the plain: tiff, if any, in the prosecution of his suit! His Honour promised to give his decision on ascertaining from Mr Ward Simpson under what authority he cancelled the certificate.^ The mining community ought to be everlastingly indebted to His Honour Judge Harvey for such a clear exposition of the, law. The question to be considered now is —Did the late Provincial authorities possess power to make a rule declaring forfeiture; unless such forfeiture is provided for by the Goldfielda Act. . One rather amusing circumstance occurred during the hearing of the case. His Honour enquired of Mr Cope the effect of a cancellation. Mr Cope replied that it amounted to turning a person out of his property. His Honour : Who, has the ground now ? Mr Cope : The, same parties. I went up in the evening directly after the decision - and marked out the ground, and applied for a mining lease. His Honour : Then you will get it. Mr Cope :I am entitled , to, the ground, the Warden having declared it open to owners of miners' rights,, and I was the first one there. _ • , " , '