TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

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

TO-DAY'S PROCEEDINGS.

On resuming to-day Mr Dn- lop further stated that he left the S>xon in June, 1892.

Mr Porii't gave formal evidence, producing tie application by plaintiff for the Disowned licensed holding, being the late Prince Imperial. Mr Clendon made apjliciiion to the Couit to be allowed lo produce evidence rebutt'n» some of Mr Durj)p|j'a statements. He said he had rot amitipa cd <he defence raised. Mr Dunlop had in bis evidence denied plaint'fi's allegation re nor-working by stating that certain men were working on the ground at a certain time. He asked for permission to produf c evidence to show that Mr Dunlop's statements were incorrect.

After some discussion His Worship ruled against Mr Clendon's application. Mr Miller contended that there was no proof of abandonment. They had merely nob complied with the regulations. There were proofs of ownership by the company within the four years. The fact that the rent had been kept paid up was a proof of the non-inten-tion of the company to abandon the ground. Further acts of ownertbip were the fact of the company advertising for tribulers. Two years a^o Mr Dunlop had ordered Mr O'Keefe to leave the mine, being a trespa?s<sr, bnt Mr O'Keefe did not then remind Mr Dunlop that he had abandoned the mine two years previously. Another proof that no abandonment was intended.was that the iron rails was left in the shaft, and the tributers being emp'oyed on it. Then, again, there was the interview of Mr Dunlop with the Mining Inspector last November, which showed that no aban"donment was intended. As to clause 4 of the plaint,they had proved conclusively that work was conducted on the ground during the last four years. It was only natural that Mr O'Keefe should not sea the men working. He (Me Miller) would have been very much surprised if he had done so, as it W3S not to complainant's interest to see men working on it. Mr Miller then contended that it lay with the plaintiff to prove the non-work-ing. The evidence of Mr Peat, brought to support thab of the plaintiff on tbat point, really contradicted it, as elso did the evidence of Mr Gea»'y. He conconsidered that the breach of the regulations was not a wilful one, and therefore he urged that the Warden should not forfeit the mine but inflict a fine. After further reviewing the evidence, Mr Miller pointed out that the company had spenc more money on the ground than they would have had to expend by employing three men for the whole period—that is, by complying with the strict letter of the law. The evidence of Mr Danlop showed ths6 the average number of men employed 1892 and 1893 was over 20, The whole area of the threo holdings was 41 acres, and according to the Act 20 men were required for this area. Therefore, taking the holdings ell together, the company had complied with the law. The speaker quoted authorities 1.0 show tint the Warden ba'l power to inflict a fine in lieu of forfeiture, and then went on to say that Mr O'Keefe's application showed that if he obtained possession of this valuable property he proposed to expend £500 on it in 21 ye^rs, for which, no doubt, he would introduce foreign capital. The only other evidence of the plaintiff's intention to mine wag his action in injuring the shaft before being stopped by Mr Dunlop. His motives were not worthy of consideration. Mr Millerconcluded by asking that a fine should be infl cced in lieu of forfeiture

Mr Clendon, in reply, contended that there was ample proof of abandonment, and quoted section 60 of the Mining Act. In 1892 the whole lock, stock and barrel was removed. Mr O'Keefe's evidence on this point was not denied. The only thing left was the rails in the shaft. E»pry thing aho*e cround was taken away. The sfciteraent about the advertising: for tributers was all bunkum. The tributera could not get into the ground except through the shaft, and when the complainant descended the shaft he was cleared out. The bonajide mining opera'ions consisted of the scratching of the surface by Mr Ehwkes, whs merely carted away some mulbck. He would con'end that to all intsnts and purposes the mine was abandoned. Mr Milter's contention re the evidence of the complainant being the only thing the complainant had to rely on was utter drivel—he could call it nothing else. If the f ;Cts elicited did nit fully justify the absolute forfeiture of 'the holding then the sooner the lalor clauses of the Act were remove 1 from the statutes the better for the mining communiy. Mr O'Keefe's evidence went to show that the ground had been dismantled for three years, and he was supported by Messrs Geary, Peat and FarreUey. He was sorry to say that the Mining Inspector (Mr Wilson) had been put in a false position. He bad oiearly mada a mistake, If the forfeiture of the mine

s. ltel if would'be a t.i-it reflation'B? Mr Wilson's administration of tbe law! and therefore Mr'Wil'on's evidence could notbe relied on any more than that of a jcliceman professionally interested Irr cross-examination by the speaker Mr Wilson bad admitted that he considered Mr Dunlop was not carrying out the conditions of the icense. i n % h eudence Mr Dunlop Midihafc since February, 1892, the mine had beea dismantled. M r Danlop also stated that Angust. 1893, was tbe first time that tributes came into possession The tnbuter on tlii* oc^ion was Scaalon, and the next was Hawkes in February, 1894 There w.. then a break 'iW May of the same year, when Mr Cannon started to ecra'ch the surface. He would submit that MrDanlop'sevU dencc showed aggrava-ed neglect. If the .omp.ny wished to hold the three licenced holding, why., did they not amalgamate them ? This was no;, he submitted, r stage for the complainant to stat* - ' am. ou"t oi™a *1 he wasgoins to -j^end, and Mr Millei * statement re t» c fcjJO was absurd The ac.ion of the company in not supplying a statement of expenditure on works to the Mining Inspector or the - Warden was uext commented upon by Mr LJendon, who, iv conclusion, urjed that ■ toe hcldm* should be .forfeited, and pos. srsfion of it awarded to Mr O'Keefe. Jhe Warden said that there were two grounds on which the present suit had n. br, ou/^-(l) that the licensed holding had been totally abandoned, (j» that from Ist June, 1891, to date J*e proper number of men had not been *L ployed. As regards the first ground Hie complainant's case had broken down completely. To prove abandonment de facw the most cogent evidence was re quired. \he yery smallest act done to assert ownership refuted abandonment, and the fact that the defendant company had kept the rent paid up was a strong assertion of ownership. The fact that the contribution to the Big Pump had been paid up also tended in this direction, while the action of the defendant comSXvf time t0 time allowing KSESSt Tl On the Sr°™d-some as ttibuters-and others with a " roving commission -was sufficient to show that no abandonment was intended. The action of Mr Dunlop in stopping the • ompJamant from injuring the shaft was not an argument that the mine was being shut down. On the other hand it was 1 cogent argument that the company were iiuertinjr their right to protect the shaft. The machinery was removed hot with the intention of abandoning the mine but for the purpose of working the ground from another place. That part of the complaint had therefore failed. The other ground on which forfeiture was asked was the nonemployment of the proper number of men. It was admitted that this was true to • large extent. It was impossible to deny, that the regulations had not been complied w,tb. At the same time it we * proved that at no time had a less number efmen, including tributers, been employed than .would have been snfficient to man the whole area of ground held by tbe company. The Mining Inspector had said that as a Government officer he would not take proceedings so long as the regulations were complied with in this manner. The Mining Inspector was an official invested with a large araonnt of discretion. He was not expected to rash about the country taking proceedings everywhere. Consideiing the depression, which had existed for the past few years a rash exercise of his powers would hate been disastrous, as it would have caused a large number of the mines througbont the field to be shut down. It wsis necessary for him to steer a middle course. He had to distinguish between a gross neglect to comply with the law and a technical non-compliance in which the spirit of the law was obeyed, and in which an honest desire to comply with the law was evinced. Under these circumstances the Mining; Inspector bad said to Mr Dunlop that be did nob feel constrained to take proceedings while the defendant company were manning their ground according to the spirit of the law. The Mining Inspector took a broad view of the malter and acted in the public interest. If ha took proceedings in each individual case where there was a technical non-compliance with the law, he would have to do so ku a:l cases; therefore ho did not see his wa/ to harm the district by taking a narrdw* course. He (the Warden) considered the discretion of the Mining Inpector had been wisely exercised. With regard to the defendant company there had been a technical breach of the regmlations, but at the same time a substantial compiiance. The company should certamly have furnished a detailed - statement of the expenditure, to the Warden's Office, and if mine owners intended in future to rely on the details ot the expenditure in connection with' manning tne ground they must regularly furnish these returns. There had been no deliberate intention of neglect and abandonment on the part of the defen-. dant company, and therefore a fine of £10 end costs £4 4s would meet the occasion.