PLAINT FOR FORFEITURE.

Thames Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 8074, 20 June 1895, Page 2

PLAINT FOR FORFEITURE.

AN IMPORTANT CASE.

M. O'KEEFFE V. THE VICTORIA

G.M. CO

A caso of considerable interest occupied the attention of the Warden's Court to-day, being that of Michael O'Keeffe ?., the Victoria G.M. Co, The plaint stated (1) That camplainant is the holder of a miner's right dated 6th June, 1895; (2) That the defendant company has been since the 4th of June, 1891, the registered owners of a licensed holding situated at the Thames aod containing 7 acres I rood 20 perches, and known as the Prince Imperial; (3) That in the middle of theyear 1891 the defeudant company dismantled the said Imperial licensed holding and removed all the plant and machinery thereon and allowed and have since continued to allow the said licensed holding to be entirely unused; (4) For the period of four years last past, to wit: from the first day of June 1891, to the date of these proceedings (less certain periods upon which the said licensed holding was protected by law) the defendant company has failed to employ in or about the said Prince Imperial licensed holding the number of men, being in the proportion of one man to the area of two acres of the land so held as a licensed holding, and as by the statute regulations is in that behalf made and provided. The complainant therefore praye.l: (I) That the defendant company be adjudged to have committed a breach of the conditions of the license under which it holds the said Prince Imperial licensed holding; (2) That the defend an i company be adjudged to have forfeited all right, title, ancl interest in the said Prince Imperial licensed holding; (3) That the complainant be declared first applicant therefor; (4) That complaicant may have the order of the Court to take possession thereof; (5) That co tii} lain ant may have such further or other order in the premises as to the Court n ay seem meet. Mr P. rritr, Mining Registrar, stated that the Prince Imperial holding was upon the register. The license was dated the 6h of March, 1890, and was in force. The Victoria company were the registered owners of the holding, and had been since the 4th of June, 1891. The area was 7 acres 1 rood 20 perches. Mr Miller here admitted that since June, 1891, no protection had been granted by the Court for the holding. —By Mr Miller: The license was granted to the New Prince Imperial G.M.Co. (Limited). This latter*company obtained two exchanges of their title. The license was originally, issued to the Prince Imperial G-.M.00. on the 13th of March, 1872. A. portion of the area was forfeited by the Mining Inspector on the 19 oh of March, 1889, and the remaining portion was surrendered by the company for the purpose of obtaining a new license, including other ground, under the Act

of 1873. This license was issued to the Prince Imperial G.M.Co. (Limited) on the 23rd of March, 1880. That license was surrendered on the 24th of February, 1890, in exchange for title uuder the Act of 1886 for exactly the same land. This was the commencement of the title to the present land. In 1881 the license was transferred to Messrs A. and G. Price. In 1882 it was transferred to the New Prince Imperial GKM.Co., which surrendered it for exchange of title in 1890 from the Act of 1873 <o I hat of 18.86. This new title was transferred to the Victoria Gr.M.Co. on the 4th of June 1891. The rent on this licensed holding was paid up to the 6;h o^ March, 1896.— By Mr Clendon.—The lasf instalment of rent was due in March and was paid in May. The Victoria C.j. also hel i the Deep Level Cross No. I holding'of 29 acres 2 roods 19 perches, the rent on which was pai I up. Tue license was dated th* 26th of July, 1888. The company also held the Deep Level Cross No. 2, of. 4-acres. 2 roods II perches, the rent being paid up. The license was the same date as the other. Michael D. O'Keefe, the complainant, sratel that he was a miner and mine manager, and had resided at the Thames since the4'h September, 1890. He was the hi'der of a £l miners' right, dated 6 r.h June, 1895. [Right produce.] Kuew the P.iuce Imperial ground, which is adjacent to the Saxon sectiou of the May Queen property, and also to the Victoria. For the last three or four years, he had been intimately acquainted with the Prince Imperial ground, having passed over it at least once a day nearly all that time. It would be the western portion that he had passed over. From there, he could see all the available mining portion of the Prince Imperial ground. Tuesday, the 11th inst., was the first occasion for the last three years that he hid seen anyone mining on the land. About the end of 1891, he saw men there taking down the machinery—the winding plant, poppet head?, winding drums, platform, tramway, tres'Jing, cages, engine shed, mining office, and changing house. Everything that was capable of being removed was shifted, and Lad never been brought back. There was a shaft, in the mine, situated within a chain of where witness had to pass daily. That shaft was also stripped to within about five feet of the surface, and naiie 1 up with galvanised iron. He took off a portion of the galvanised iron himself two years and two months ago, and went down the shaft. Understood that Mr Dunlop was then manager for the Victoria Cb. About that time he saw Mr Dunlop, and they had a conversation in reference to the P.ince Imperial mine. Witness was induced by two other men to go to work in the Prince Irn-: perial ground seven or eight days Delore he saw M.v Dunlop, Worked

for about a week, and theu say/ Mr Dunlop, The Court here adjourned until 2.15 o'clock.

On resuming, the witness continued his evidence as follows : He worked in the mine about a week. Went

down to the No. 3 level, but could not get any further because of the influx of water. There were no indications'of any recent mining, or nny plant or tools. He spoke to Mr Dunlop the seventh or eighth day after he commenced work. The conversation took place at the shaft. Mr Dunlop ordered him off the ground, saying that witness was a trespasser, and he should clear out. Witness explained that he came there with Scanlon, and that he understood that Scanlon had a tribute there. Mt Dunlop replied that Scanlon had no tribute. The mouth of the shaft had been nailed up ever since. The door was also locked, and always had been as, far as witness. knew. When he went down the shaft, there was no machinery attached to it. No, practical mining could be carried on in the absence of the machinery, except with the windlass between No. 1 level and the surface—a distance of perhap3 100 ft. The smithy and trucks had also been removed from the ground. There was no other access to the Prince Imperial mine for mining purposes except by means of the shaft. It was possible to get to the f rince Imperial mine from the Saxon shaft, but in the present circumstances mining could not be carried on by that means. Last Monday he went down tho Saxon shaft^to the No. 5 leval, and found the approach to the Prince Imperial ground in a very bad state—so bad that he could not get into the Prince Imperial ground. He asked that the ground should be forfeited and that he should have an order to take possession of the ground. Cross-examined by Mr Miller : Witness haH pegged out the ground and given notice of the pegging in the usual way. He had pegged it out and lodged the plaint to obtain possession so as to have two strings to his bow. Had watched the ground pretty closely for the past two yeavs. Would not swear that he had not seen auyoae working on the surface for the last two years. He had once seen carters taking away mullock—one dray with some men around it. Had lived for two years over the crown of the Prince Imperial hill, and had very often gone home that way. Had not been over the crown of the hill more than three times during the last six months. Would not swear that during 1894 over 500 cart loads of stuff had been taken away from the Prince Imperial mine and crushed. He would be surprised to learu that such was the case. The machinery might not have been removed until 1892. It was Scanlon who induced him to go to work in tho Prince Imperial mine. Scanlon told witness that he had jusfa obtained a free license to a tribute in

any part of the mine. Scanlon was working on the face of the»hill, bul only worked for the same length of time as witness—seven or eight days. Did not get any permission from Mr Duulop to go down the shaft. Could not recollect whether Scanlon got the key of the door, but the door was unlocked, and he went down the travelling road. The ladders went down as far as he did. They were fixtures. Witness began to open out on a leader in the shaft between No. 1 level and the surface, and let it down to the No. 1 chamber. Mr Dunlop said that Scanlon had no tribute at all. The complaint stated that no work had been done on the mine for the last four years. He had not see/a any mining done for that period. Gould not swear that the Victoria Co. had not done any driving in 1891. "Would be very surprised to hear that they had done over 900 feet of driving. He would swear that no tributers had worked on the surface for the last two years —none that he had seen. Ec-examined x by Mr Clendon :No work could be carried on undergronnd in the absence of the winding machinery. The loads of mullock that he saw being carted away might have been for the filling in of back yards. The road he had .referred to went right across the mine and immediately past the shaft, and had people been working there he must have seen them or else seen traces of their work. At the time he went down the shaft no one was in visible possession, and the mine was dismantled at that time. John Peat stated that ha was braceman for the May Queen Company. Anyone who went down the Saxon shaft in* the daytime could only do so wittr* witness* knowledge. Had filled that position for over three years. Knew the PrinceJ Imperial shaft, but not the boundaries. The shaft had been unused for perhaps two or three years. He remembered the plant and machinery being adjacent to the shaft at one time, but it was shifted over to the Victoria mine about three years ago. Had seen several people picking about the hill for a week or*h fortnight at a time as the case might be. Cross-examined by Mr Miller : The machinery was moved about ten chains away, he understood to another part of the mine. People might have been working in the mine without him seeing them. Hugh Farrelley stated that ho was a miner residing in Upper .Albert street. -Knew the Prince Imperial licensed holding, and had been over it a couple of times a day for the last two jrears or more, oil the western side, close to the shaft. It could only be worked on the

western side. The whole of the plant .and machinery had been removed over two years ago to what is known as Tookey's shaft, and off the Prince Imperial ground. After that a galvanised iron fence was erected around the shaft, and is still there.

The only mining he had seen done on the ground was by Mr O'Keefe and his mate two years ago last April. For the last three years the mine or shaft had not been used as far as witness was aware. There were two means of working the ground—from the Prince Imperial shaft and also the Saxon shaft. Knew the underground, workings •of both mines. No practical mining could be carried on in the Prince Imperial from the Saxon shaft without difficulties, because No, 5 level of the Saxon and No. 4 of the Prince Imperial did not correspond by some 15 or 20ft. No. 6 level of the Imperial was put into the Saxon shaft; about five years ago for the purpose of draining the Saxon mine. Cross-examined by Mr Miller: Could not say whether the iron rails had been removed from undergiound. Saw Scanlon, Lannigan, and O'Keefe working in the shaft, but they were only there a- little while. They brought some qua?fcz to the surface. Ceuld not say how much mullock had been removed from the ground.

James Geary gave evidence to': the effect that eight or Bine months ago he had seen Mr Hawkes carting a lot of stuff away, but he could not say whether it was from the Saxon or Prince Imperial. The whole of the machinery and plant had been taken away, and the shaft fenced in. This closed the case for the com plainant.

[Left sittin,-.]