WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1905, 10 February 1875, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY 4 (Before W. FiusEk, Esq., Warden.) m'ilhohe.v. bichabd stokes. This was a case brought by the Inspector of Miner's Eights against Richard Stokes, a carter for having been engaged in mining operations within, the Hauraki Goldmining District without being the holder of a miner's right. It may be remembered that Stokes was a witness in the case of M'llhone v. Salmon for. a breach of the Mining Regulations. It came out in Stokes evidence that he was not possessed of a miner's right. He stated also that he was paid for filling the dart, and it was upon this latter statement of his that the case of John Salmon turned. (This is the first case in which a carter has'been brought up for not being the possessor of a miner s right.) The Warden: The Inspector of Miner's Eights charges you.with having no miner's right. Have y«t£got one h Defendant replied that he had not. The Warden: .You have been engaged in mining operations ? Defendant": 1 have been carting stuff, that is all.

In reply to further questions from His., Worship, defendant stated that he had bjeen carting for Mr Salmon from the "Prrnce Imperial mine, and carrying it to the Prince Alfred Machine,. next the Pumping Association. ~J ; Mr Macdonald said if the Court decided that the Inspector was wtyhin the Act, it was intended to ask for a nominal penalty only, for this reason—that defendant was so near the line that he might have been, under the impression he wasnofcunder an obligation to take out a license ; but: the Court would agree that h» was justly withjn the line. ' . His Worship remarked that the Act of 1866 was more just than this. It was a pity'the burden did not fall upon those who reaped the .benefit. This man only' got his wages to depend upon: . Mr Macdonald agreed with His Worship, but remarked that this case w-as U6£ftrir«s*»howing, people who might be doubtful that it was necessary for carters •

to have miners rights. | , (His Worship referred to the Act for ' .the interpretation' t of the words mining operations. The clause reads as follows : , —"Mining purposes" and "mining operations" shall include mining for gold,, and the erection of machinery and the doing of all lawful acts incident or conducive thereto.)' Mr Macdonald explained that defendant, was, a, witness in the,case, against Mr Salmon, and it was through his evidence that the case had fallen through. If it could have been proved that Mr Salmon was engaged in filling the cart the casjs would have resulted differently, but he cmf bff because he was, only hajslp- .. jng another man; and the question was, {Vbit^rai tfhej'; other^***?- £gr. iMacaoniTd stated^hat his first impression had been that defendant was outside. the line. It struck him at first sight that they might as well go against the men who* crushed the quartz, and further go into the banks and against the men who melted the gold. But on mature consideration he had come to the conclusion that according to the interpretation^ of the law the carter who took quartz from the paddock was as liable as he who took it to the paddock, the latter as liable as the man who put it into the hopper, and so on till they came to the man working at the reef. His Worship said the crushing of the craartz was a most important item in mining operations ; as to the banks, the mo • ment the quartz became bullion, the treatment was no -longer a feature in mining operations. He had no doubt, however, about this case. Mr Macdonald said it was unnecessary, to call evidence—they had defendant's statement.

Defendant said Mr Rawden already paid £10' a year for licenses for his drays." His Worship explained that that was one of the luxuries of living under p. corporate body, and had, nothing to do with the present proceedings. Defendant boasted of a considerable experience as a carter, bat never knew that a carter had to have a miner's right before. .(This experience, he saidrwas limited tovthe Thames.) His Worship told him that he would know had he been on other diggings that he would have to be licensed. For carrying water.he would have to.have a license—to be on the field at 'all, it' was necessary to be possessed of one. He" (His Worship) never! knew a placp rejoicing in such Umited taxation as the Thames—-a;man did not even require to have a business license. He felt sorry that defendant, being a'poor man, should be made an example of, and under the circumstancfcs he would make the fine as light as lie could, namely Is, and the Inspector would no doubt reduce the costs as much as possible. . There was one witness present, Mr Salmon, who said he would forego his costs. ./, Mr Salmon wantsd to. know what would be the position of defendant if his employer had a: miner's right. His Worship said it*would make no difference. ( And it was just as well that people should know the occupation of a carter entailed the necessity, for a license. Mr Salmon opined that it was a'matter upon whifh some sound argument could be raised. ' J • His Worship said he should be glad to see some new light thrown upon the matter. He considered" it lucky for many that they haft not got white people instead of Maories to deal with in this matter. The Court then adjourned.