PLAINT FOR FORFEITURE.

Thames Star, Volume XXVI, Issue 8075, 21 June 1895, Page 2

PLAINT FOR FORFEITURE.

AN IMPORTANT CASE. ! M. O'KEEFE V. THK VICTORIA GKM. CO. After we went to press yesterday the above case was contimied as follows :—

Mr Miller addressed the Court at some length in opening his case, and referred to the past history of the mine, reviewing it from 1881. He said he proposed to show that the Prince Imperial Co. had expended a considerable amount of mouey in the sinking of the shaft, &c, exceeding £4000, and would contend that only one man should be employed to comply with the labor provisions. He would aleo show that the Victoria Co. had since 1890 done about 900 ft of driving, and expended over £2000. Mr Dunlop, the company's supervisor, believed that the full manning of the mine was sufficient to cover the whole ai'ea. He would also prove that a tribute had been let to Mr Hawkes, who had carted away the mullock and treated it. This was nothing more than a " fishing expedition" on the part of Mr O'Keef c, who might make the same allegation against almost every other mine on the field,

Mr Clendon: " And I think we shall catch some fish, too."

The "Warden said that as the matter now stood the evidence showed that there had been clear abandonment, the whole of the machinery having been removed. Mr Miller further addressed the Court, and then called

G. S. Clark, who stated that he was the manager of the New Moanatairi Co.'s mine, and knew the Prince Imperial ground, having become manager of it in February, 1882. The New Prince Imperial Co. sank the shaft from No. 3 level to the bottom—3l9ft.

Mr Clendon at this point objected to evidence being given of work carried out by previous owners, but His Worship over-ruled the objeetion,holding that such evidence was admissable, as there had npt been a break in the title.

The witness (Mr Clark) continued: The sinking of the 319 ft referred to cost about £1100. The New Prince Imperial Co. erected winding machinery and buildings at a cost of about £1100. The new machinery was erected in 1883. The shaft was sunk between 1882 and 1884. Cross-examined by Mr Clendon : Witness took charge of the Prince Imperial mine in 1882 and left in 1889. About £120.000 worth of gold came out of the mine during that period. Ihe amount paid in dividends was £3 7s 6d per share ou 18,000 shares. This was obtained from the 7 acres of ground now in dispute. The New Prince Imperial Co. sold the mine and machinery to the Victoria Co.

George Wilson, Mining Inspector, stated he knew the three licensed holdings held by the Victoria Co., the total area being about 40 acres. Recollected some time ago M r Dunlop, supervisor of the company, speaking to him about the mattei". It might have been one or even two years ago Mr Dunlop mentioned to him that the Victoria Co. had removed the machinery from the Prince Imperial shaft and erected it on Tookey's shaft. He asked if witness thought the men employed in Tookey's shaft would comply with the labor clauses of the Act in regard to the Prince Imperial holding as well as the Deep level Cross No. 2 holding. Witness told him that as a Government officer he would not take proceedings so long as a sufficient number of men were employed for the full area,'as it appeared to witness that the spirit of the Act would thus be cemplied with. The Tookey's shaft was on the Victoria Co.'s property. Cross-examined by Mr Clendon: The cor.rersation was aft r the removal of the macbiuery, but he could not say how long afterwards. Did not consider that in what Mr Dunlop proposed to do he was carrying out the conditions of his several lecensee. It was part of witness' duty to see that the holdings were manned. Had not received any statement in writing aa to the expenditure of the Victoria Co. on the Prince Imperial holding and the two other holdings, but he believed 'he Warden had. It was a part of his duty toiinspectthe mines. He had not been through (he Prince Imperial mine since the removal of the machinery Re-txamined \y Mr Miller : At the end of each year, Tie «ot rtturns from the

manager of ihe number of feet driven, the number if men employed, the output of gold, &,c. He iiot the usual returns from ihc Victora Co. from time to time.

By the Court: Duiing the laet three years, he had rot receive I any specific return from he Prince Imperial holding. The practice had been, where one company held several hol<iing<\ to give one labor and one gold rctmn for the whole, as one holding. This was not a singular case, as there were several others in the same position.

Samuel Cochian« Maeky,.stated th^t he was a partner with his brother, who was the lei?al manager of the company. The Victoiia Go. paid the deblH of ihe Priuce Imperial Co., and gave share for share in the Vioti ri». Since talting over the holding in I£6l the Victoria Co. had spent nearly 112,000 on the whole property —that is to say, the three holding?. The three holdings—Deep Itvel Cioas No. 1 and No. 2 and the liup?rial—had been worked as one holding. Tne directors of the company had never considered it incumbent upon themselves to work the holdings separately. The shareholders had paid 15 calls in addition to (he gold obtained and the percentage received from tributers. The company had also paid drainage contributions for the whole of the property, in addition to which the company hold in respect of the Imperial ground threefifteeuhs of tlio Bi« Pump, and the Deep Level Cross one-fifteenth. For nine months after taking over the Prince Imperial holding, £17 5a a month was paid as drainage contribution. Ihe amount now paid for the whole of the holdings was £30 per month. Three or four offers had been received for the property

Mr Clendoa : U it *n Eoglish, a Scotch, or an Irish syndicate V Wituesg: I don't k'»ow. Mr Clendon : Can you tell me any area on the Thames that h not at present supposed to be under offer to foreign capiti!ists? Witness : Yes. The Camhria. Witness continued : Could not say how much money the Vi to;ia Company had ppenfc on the Prince Imperial holding, A'l fche calls had been jeid. Could not nay why a special claim had not been appji d for for the three areep, or why protection had nob been applied for. Ttie directors had no iJea that any "jumping" wal- now t;oiog oa on the Thames. Mr Clendon % •' Well, we w U^oon see atom that, Xou recently laid a plaint

ag.iinst Colonel Fraser. Ij that ' jump ing" or a friendly suit?" (Laughter). Witness continued '• He did not know what number of men the Victoria Cotopiny had employed nppn wßges. He was not a shareholder in the Victoria Compiny. Tho?. A. Dunlop stated that he had a mining fxperience of over 30 years, and was well acquainted w'th the Vio'oria C-.>.'k mine, of which he had been supervisor for the last tbree or four ye ire. Knew the i three holdings, one of which was tho Prince Imperial. First started operations in this latter holding in October, 1890 The transfer, however, was not comply ed

until about the middle ■ f 1891. Before tke amalgamation the defendant company drove a ma'u adit crosscut north throiuh

the Imperial section. They drove 350 feet before the amalgamation", ni an a»eraj;e coat of about £2 per foof. Aft r the

amalgamation th same a<3it cosscut was drivtn another 113 feet. They also drove south towards the Saxon, making a total of 800 feet driven by the company on their own account. fi his averaged from 35s to 40a per foot. 1300 feet of driving was done in round figures. That was done before the machinery was removed by the defendant company. The drive north was to connect with the Tookey section, but at 450 feet it met the seaward slide or fault. They drove 90ft into the slide, but were then not able to keep the ground up. The ground was well timbered, but was still unsafe. 1 hey stopped the drive south because they met with nothing favorable and discontinued it after driving 460 ft. It was after this decided by the company to remove the machinery from the Imperial to the Tookey shaft, about 9 or 10 chains north of the Imperial. The. removal was completed in April, 1892 The Tookey shaft was in one of the company's holdings, No. 1 Deep Level Cross. The lemoval was effected with a view of driving south from the Tookey shaft to meet the north drive in the Imperial. On this crosscut they drove 700 feet and met the same slide, and thus had to give the idea up. The company had no idea of abandoning the ground when they removed the machinery. The machinery was removed with the view to place it in a central position, from which they could work all the holdings. Notwithstanding the removal of the machinery, on several occasions persons had been working on the Prince Imperial ground. Mr Hawkes was working there. He had a tribute under the Company to cart stuff away from the hill, crush it, and pay the Company 5 per cent. That was in 1894 From February to April, 1894, Mr Hawkes' tribute continued. From the battery return about 500 tons was crushed from this place. Ihe company got no proceeds. Scanlan also had a tribute there, and several other parties had permission to work anywhere they liked on the surface or undergrouud. Several tribute parties did work on the surface. It was not a ;fact that for 4 years the mine was unworked. Mr O'Keefe had no right down the shaft. Witness found he was destroying the shaft by throwing mullock down, and witness objected. Otherwise witness would not have objected. Besides O'Keefe was only 55 or 40 feet from the surface. The company had never expressed the intention of abandoning the ground. They had advertised for tributers for the Victoria mine and were willing to assist them. They never had protection for the mine and had kept the rent paid up. The rails still remained in Nos. 2 and 3 levels in the mine. The ladder ways were still intact. The company would have removedthese had they intended to abandon the ground What Mr Wilson had stated in his evidence re manning the ground was correct. Witness considered that, as long as he kept sufficient men on, that would satisfy the Mining Inspector. Witness had regularly sent in the returns from the mine re number of men, etc. Last year the company had as many as 58 men, and an average of 25 men all round, wages men and tributers. '1 he year before that (1893) the average was 21. The combined area of the three holdings was about 41 acres. If the three holdings were looked upon as one they had been fully manned, The company had expended an amount of money upon the Prince Imperial ground, which was more than sufficient to have worked it with three men for the whole time. The company still desired to hold the ground. [Witness' miner's right produced.] Cross-examined by Mr Clendon.—Wit- I

ness was manager of the Saxon. Relinquished the position about July or August, 1893. It was while witness was manager of the Scxon that the north and south drives were put in. VVi ness was serving both the Victoria and Saxon companies. From the former witness got £2 a week. The Saxon company contributed to the cost of the southern drive for drainage purposes. It was put in as a prospect ing work by the Victoria Cc. and for drainage purposes by the Saxon- There wa9 no means of getting down below the Imperial ground, through the Imperial ground, except by the Imperial shaft. The levels of the Saxon did not fit in with the leveli.of the Prioce Imperial. Noorierations could be carried on from the Saxon shaft iv the Imperial ground except by driving. No. 6 level in the Saion was the nearest in the Imperial and from there it would fca" necessary to drive 25ft. There

was no watsr ti contend with. In February 1892 the plant and machinery was shifted ritjtit off the Imperial ground. In the early part of 1892 the mine was boarded up ai required by the regulations in the case of unused shafts. Ihere bad been no working in the Imperial shaft since]B92. Witness did not go down the shaft whenO'Keefe was there, but a few days af er. Witness knew through his foremaD. Jas. Thomas, that Q'Keofe was injuring the fh*fr. Witness told Ihomas to go down the shaft. After February, 1892 no work was done below the surface. The first tribute for the surface was let in August or Sebtember 1893 to Thomas Scanlon, to work npon a leader on the surface of the hiiJ. To witness' knowledge, Scanlon wag there about 3 month?. He was not doing much when he leff. Witness gave him a "roving commisaion." Scanlon did not earn wages there. Scanlon paid the company a percentage, but witness did not know how much. Mr Hawk s was the next tribute!'. In February, 1891, he caaie into possession. His terms were 5s commission after expenses. He tributed until April 10'h, 1894. Mr flawkes was a carter. He took some loose stuff to the battery, and ulso some broken off ihy hill. Plawkes got barely enough to pay. Witness could not say how much Huwkes got out of it. Duiing 1894 witness went underground occasionally. The " roving commission" gentlemen were oa the surface. The company got nothing out of the tributers

in cotntnis-io^. Did not know what the tributers got. It was paitiy b(."<a»<e of the authority from the Inspector of Mnes that witness did not individually man the Prince Imperial ground. Betwean December, 1894^ and June, 189-5, witness knew of no tributer on the ground except W. Connon. H> set t in, in May, 1895, a tender for bis block, and therefore wif.oe?s remembered the name. He did not remenabr the name of any other tributer. Witness did not know who wrote out the document of tender. Witness would sweat* that this document (application by Connon) was written before the commencement of these proceedings. The document came into witness' possession about" May 28th, after the first crushing. Witness had authority to (leal with tributers without reference to the company, and did not send'the document to the company. Connon started work about May 25th. Connon only had one crushing—three or 'four days after lie started. Since then Connon had been away some days. Witness would not swear that Connou was not away from May 28th to June 11th. Connon told witness he was going to A uckland. No gold, was recovered from the drives put in north and south Owiug to the nature •f the country the drives before referred to were discontinued on reaching the fault. No plant or machinery had been on the Prince Imperial since the removal of the machinery There were seven levels in the Prince Imperial. The rails in Nos. 4, 5, and 6 were removed by the Prince Imperial Company before the Victoria Company took possession. Witness would not swear that in August and September, 1893, Sctnlon was not in Waihi. Witness could not swear when Scanlon's tribute was let. ihe Court then adjourned until 10.30 to-day.