BREACHES OF THE COAL MINES ACT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2456, 17 April 1901, Page 53

BREACHES OF THE COAL MINES ACT.

At the Police Court 011 Thursday, Thomas Hunter was charged witii failing to senri m a correct half-yearly retUiii of the quantity of coal, produced m respect of the Wendou coal mine, to the inspector of mines, and also the numb pr of hands employed in the mine — Defendant pleaded guilty. — Mr Fiaser (^ho appealed foi the- inspector of mines) said the infonrMt'o ' wrs laid under section 6S of the act of 1501. Coal mine proprietors had to send in a letnrn of the ooal piodnced, and had also to make a. payment. The leturn hsd to be sent 11 to the inspector of mines In the prpsent c i«s defendant lud . cated that he had asked Mr 1T h'to, from whom he had the pit leased, to fcc'-cl in tho letuin and make the payment Mr White apparcnt'y made the pa\'mont, bu l never se?it in the It was pure-Iy an oveisight. Counsel =uggested that a small penalty would meet the caso, and he would B'ave to ask for professional coats — His Yv'orslup thought this was quite a fau" way of looking at it. He pointed out to defendant that the maximum psnaltv v. as £50, and inflicted a fine of 5s and costs (21s). Xeil M'Gi'p (owner of a pit at lli'ton) was similarly charged. He was defended by Mr Payne, aiid pleaded not guilty — Mr Fraser said no return was ever received from defendant, who, however, apparenily on the 11th March made the halfpenny a ton payment. The returns r.ot being ssnt in, kept the books open and caused a good deal of tioubie. The act said the return should be sent to the irspector, but it did not say how it should be sent. Counsel understood that Mr M'G'lp's statement was that he sent a* return, but if he did i + was never received. — Edwin Eidley Green, inspector of mines, stated in evidence thpt two notices were sent to defendant. He never got the return, and the seco.id notice was sent on the 11th February. — Mr P^.j ne said the pit was upon defendant's freehold property, and there was no question or getting out of paying royalty. Counsel would call defendant, who would state that when he received the second notice he went to the post office at Milton, and gave the postmaster the necessary mforma-t tion to make up the return. The postmaster filled 111 the particulars, defendant signed tho paper, and then posted it.— Defendant gave evidence to that effect. — His Wors-hip thought tho piobabihty was that the letter had not been prouerJy stamped, or properly aad"es?ed. Defendant would be fined the same as defendant m the previous case — namely, 5s and costs (21s).