IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

Otago Witness, Issue 1934, 19 March 1891, Page 12

IMPORTANT MINING CASE.

A sitting of tbe Warden's Court was held at Elverton, before C. S. Kawson, Esq., on March 4, when Lee and party applied for a registered right of two men's ground at Bound Hill, and Kong Fun and party objected to the same being granted. Mr Brodriok, instructed by Mr C. A. Port, mining agent, appeared for the applicants, and Mr Turton (Queenetown) appeared for the objectors. Mr Brodriok having called George Lee, who proved the due marking of the claim and the posting of notices, submitted that the objtictots should proceed to prove their objections. After a lengthy argument by counsel on both sides, the warden decided that tbe objectors must begin. Mr Turton then read the objeotioi b, which were as follow : - 1. That Lee and party hadmarkedoff thelrrefeis'eredright. 2 That they bad not given the obj >ctors notice of the said marking off. 3. Tint Lee And party were not entitled to the ground applied for, and contended, futtber, tbafc Lee and Hudnou'a miners' right having been taken out two hours after ths mnrbiog out of the claim, It w-ia not properly marked out. Mr Brodrick then put in two miners' rights held by Lee and Hudson wheu the claim wbb marked off, and contended that as they did hold miners' rights, when tbe olaim was mnrked off, although they were not the ones the particulars of which were given in the application, the claim was properly taken up, and, after further argument between counsel, thewarden deoided in favour of Mr Brodriok's contention, and the case proceeded. Mr Turton called several Chinese and four European witnesses to prove that Kong Fun and party bad purchased tbe Island claim containing three men's ground from Wong Jack in Juue 1889, aud directly after tbe purchase had re-marked the claim so as to take in nine men's gtound, and had applied for it when so marked out, as for three men's ground, and that Lee and party's pegs were inaide this boundary. The ease, after lasting some two days, was adjourned for Mr Treseder, an authorised surveyor, to make a plan of all the ground in quest'on. On resuming, Mr Treseder produced a plan showing tho position of the various pegs, when some Tery nice points were raised and argued by the counsel on each side. Mr Turton quoted numerous authorities to show that notice should have been given to objectors. Mr Brodrick contended that no notice was necessary, as he could prove that the obpotors' interests were not obviously affected. The Warden upheld Mr Brodrick's contention. The evidence of eight witnesses having been given to the effect that Kong Fun and party bad only marked off three men's ground In June 1889, and had only put in their present pegs reoantly, Mr Turton submitted that tbe proceedings to obtain the exoen of grouad now held by his

clients should have been by oomplalnt asking for the forfeiture thereof, and quoted a large number of Victorian and New Zealand authorities In support of «C v l ew * He all! 0 °°ntended that notice should have been given to objectors as provided by the act. Mr Brodriok submitted that the only questions to be decided in the case were-(i) Where was the registered right of Kong Fun and party? and (2) Had the applicants marked any portiou of it off ? This being the case, he argued that all the authorities quoted by Mr Turton had no bearing on the casethat it had been conclusively proved that the objectors had never till recently marked off more than the three men's ground purchased from Wong Jack the application to the warden in June 1889 being the best proof on that point. As to the want of notice, if it were necessary, it had been waived by the written objections put in; the only object In giving notice was so that the parties oould objeot. They bad objected, and could not now complain as they were exactly in the same position as they would have baen if noticed had been served. Lee and party had not pegged inside any portion of the proper registered olalm of Kong Pun and party, and so there was no ground for Kong Pun and party to forfeit. They could not forfeit what they had not held. The Warden, in giving judgment, said that no doubt the proper mode of obtaining any excess of ground improperly held under a certificate of registration, or even under miners' rights, was by suit by complaint for forfeiture, but in this case he was satisfied that the objectors had only a registered right to five men* ground— namely, the original Island olaim-and Lee and party's application did not come within it. He was satisfied that the objectors had made an impudent attempt to defraud the applicants and the public out of the excess of ground improperly claimed by thorn. He would iMparty oTR"' W^^ "** K ° Dg Faa Mr Turton gave notice of appeal, and asked for a stay of execution to allow him to file notice. Mr Brodriok objected, and after argument the warden decided he had no power to grant the request. It was ultimately agreed between coun.el that the costs should be paid into, court, and should not be taken out before the 10th inst. In commotion with the foregoing case the Western Star is authorised to state that there will be no appeal against the Warden's decision, as an amicable settlement bas been arranged between the litigant parties. The Chinamen have purchased the claim granted to the Europeans.— Southland Times