IMPORTANT MINING DECISION

Tuapeka Times, Volume II, Issue 79, 14 August 1869, Page 5

IMPORTANT MINING DECISION

(Condensed from the " Dunstan Times.") At the District Court, Clyde, on the 19th ult., before His Honour Mr. Justice G-rey, a case of considerable importance to miners was decided. Doberty sued Atkins under Section 1 72 G-oldfields Act, 1866, to recover damages for the nonperformance of a t contract alleged to have been entered into by defendant, to construct a mining cradle for the plaintiff at a price of £10. Warden Pyke found that a verbal contract had been entered into, and that it had not been performed, that the defendant refused to perform it. • Judgment was reserved to obtain the decision of bhe Dishricb Court on the following points : — 1. Was the nature of the Contract such as to bring it within or to exempt it from the provisions of the Statute of Frauds and Lord Tenterden's Acfc ? 2. Is the Warden bound by the provisions of those Statutes, when dealing with mining contracts ? Justice Grrey gave the following decision : — As to question 1,, The contract was within the Statute of Frauds. As to question 2., I think the 66th section of the " Goldfields Act, 1866," enables the Warden, if he thinks fit, to dispense with the requirements of the Statute of Frauds. Taking into consideration the Bth Section-of the " Goldfields Act Amendment Act, 1867," and Mr. Justice Richmond's decision in Fearson appellant and Clark respondent, ! (see Johnson's N.Z. Justice of the Peace, p. 385, note,) I think rules of evidence j fall within the* meaning of the words I "Rules of Law" in. the 66th section. But I will add that I think the Warden will use a right discretion in dispensing j with the Rules of evidence prescribed by 1 the Statute, only when the oral evidence < i is of the dearest character. .