Untitled

Thames Advertiser, Volume XXIX, Issue 9060, 8 June 1898, Page 4

lining Partnerships, 1 THEIR RELATION TO RENT OE 1 [ OLAIMS. IMPQRTANT DECISION, JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF 'WITH COSTS, . At the Warden's Court yesterday, the Warden gave judgment in the case of Receiver of Gold Revenue v. J. G. Wilson and Amelia Frances Scott—£2s rent for Rupert special claim, Tararu} which was adjourned from last' Court day to enable the Warden to'consider authorities quoted by Mr Campbell, who appeared for Mrs Scott, who' only held a forty-second interest in |the claim, Mr Campbell contended -that Mrs Scott was only liable for hei share of the rent, and i not for the whole amount. ;j The Warden said:— 1 This is a case heard at the last I sitting of the Warden's Oourt, on a | complaint by the Mining Registrar to ' recover £25 ( rent due on the Rupert I special claim, of which the defendants ■ joint ! owners,. The defendant ' Wilson being licenses of the olaim Mrs Scott the registered owner of ; l-42nd share of it. The complainant i contended that the parties were ■ partners in the claim within therceanN ing of' the Mining Act, therefore t jointly liable for the rent, and that - they came within the definition of 3' Section 8 sub-section. 2 of the Mining Act Amendment Act, 1893, which de- , fines a mining partnership. , Mr Campbell, who appeared for Mrs 1 Scott, argued that his client was only liable for l-42rid part of the rent which a he stated he was willing to pay, that 1- she could only be charged for the proportionate part of the rent, as she was •t only assigneeof 142ndpartofthewhble. a He quoted the following cases in A support of his contention:—Gamon v, Vernon,. 2, Levings' reports,, 231; l * Stevenson and Lambard, 2, East, 576 ; "': Norvaly. Pascoe, 34, LJ.Oh., 82; and some American cases which f have nol ! been able to peruse. The cases of Curds v.Spilty,;l, Bigham'sreports, 756,anc Morceron v. Dmvson, 5, Barnavjll 479 are similar cases or ( the pointj and lay down, "thatthougl an assignee of part of the land canno . be charged in an action of debt for thi • j whole rent but only for a proportionati part thereof, he is yet liable to a dis

tress for rent due for the whole of the demised premises." This no doubt is the law on the subject, and if the position of the parties was the ordinary one of landlord'and tenant, the present case would be governed by the law as laid down in the cases referred to, but the case, being dealt with is not one that can be disposed of by the common law, because it is under aspeoial statute, namely, the Mining Act 1891, and its amendments. There is no right to distrain for rent of a special claim and it is a question whether the grant of such a claim operates as a demise of the land from the Crown. Section 8 sub-section 2 of the Mining Act 1893 says, ,( A mining partnership exists where ; two ; or more persons own a claim, special claim, licensed holding, or any mining right for the purpose of working, or using it. and actually engage in working and using the same, or jointly employ others to work, or use the same for them and whether there be a written ' contract. of partnership or not," Section 179 of the' Act of 1891, lays down an express agreement to ' become partners is not necessary the relation • arises out of the" ownership of shares in a claim.'' and working the same for the purpose for which the same were taken possession of or granted. There are other provisions as the statute defining the liabilities etc. of partners as between themselves. Mining partnerships are somewhat different from ordinary partnerships inasmuch as any one of the partners can part with his interest to any person without the ' concurrence of the other partners; and | the purchaser becomes a partner , from the date of. his purchase, and , a mining partnership is nob dissolved r by the death or bankruptcy of any 1 partner, see Stewart and another v j, Nelson and others 15 S.O.L.R. 637. 1 In Gallagher v. Tally,7 S.C.L.B. 35, ' the question of mining partnership is ! fully discussed, and in re the Talisman [ Dredging Co, 11 S.O.L.E, 69, Williams, Justice, says'" The position J of a claim holder seems to me rather ' that of a statutory licensee with the I rights and subject only to the liabili- ', ties c-eated by the statute." ■Th" pnjment of rent is one of the • statuary liabilities attaching to every • sp«'i:l clhim. It seeins to me .this i case binges on the question as to fc whether there was a mining partner--3 ship between the parties, The register 3 was put in in evidence by the defend--8 ant,, that shows that' Mrs Scott became • the registered owner of her interest on • the 4th. April, 1897, and that aper1' i mission to work the claim with 4 men * ( waa applied for and granted on the lt l Bth June, 1897, two months after she became part owner of this special '* claim. Owners of claims are bound by law to man and work the ground II held by them with the number of nvn e required by regulations. It is, how--11 ever, permissible to work with a less )r l " number of men on certain contingent es l t than that prescribed by regulations, if e permission is applied for and granted. 16 Such an application was made, and '8 granted with respect to thisparticun lar claim' after Mrs Scott became 't part owner, and ,1 think it may be r fairly presumed that in compliance J s with that permission the number of men authorised were employed or actually worked on the ground. This, le of course, would bring Mrs Scott within a Section 8, Sub-section 2, of the Mining Act' Amendment Act, 1893, by con-* tituting her a partner, Mrs Scott, by . ier purchase and transfer, acquired ic, uot a right to the gold obtained from a forty second part of tho ground, but

J an.equal.right with the other defendant, to a. proportionate part of the I gold secured from the whole of the 100' acres, her jright was not limited to any particular ;fortv-second part of the land held under the 1 license, For years past ; it has been the practice to proceed against all the owners of Such claims for rent against whom judgment has v been given, and, so far as I can ascertain, the correctness of these decisions has never heen tested in the Supreme Court. "Whatever may he the hardship in the present case, I see .no i reason to depart from the practice that l has so long prevailed in such cases. i Having come to this conclusion, I i shall hold that Mrs Scott was a partner I in this claim, and is therefore jointly s liable with the other defendant for the 1 rent claime'd, Should she be com- [ polled to pay the whole amount of the r judgment, I presume she would have I her remedyjagainst the other member or members; of the partnership, Judgment will ;be for the complainant t against both defendants for £25, and i costs 16s. , 1