RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 697, 13 August 1870, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Fbidat, August 12. (Before J. Giles, Esq., R. M.) LABCENY. James Spinks was charged with stealing one bottle of sherry, value 2s 6d, from Henry Stannard, on the 11th instant, and a bottle of " old torn " aud two pewter measures, value 13s, from Margaret Mills on the 10th inst. The prisoner pleaded guilty to each charge, and stated that he was in the horrors from drink at the time the offences were committed. His Worship said drunkenness could not be pieaded in mitigation, and it appeared that the offences were committed at two separate times. As far as the Court knew the prisoner had not been previously convicted for a similar offence, and he should therefore make the sentences concurrent. The prisoner would be committed to gaol for one month with hard labor unon each charge. CIVIL cases. Knopp v. Spink, claim for 15s, the balance due upon a ring. Plaintiff gave evidence as to the defendant having admitted the liability, and obtained judgment by default in amount claimed and costs. Dewdney v. Finlay. In this case the defendant was summoned to show cause why the amount of a judgment debt £7 lid had uot been paid. The defendant stated, on oath, that he had not earned more that £2 a week during the past twelve months. He was working a prospecting tunnelling claim at the Caledonian. Cross-examined by the plaintiff. I have not been on the '"spree" since you obtained judgment against me, neither did you see me drunk at the Caledonian. His Worship did not consider the case one in which he ought to make an order of imprisonment. It had not been shown that the defendant had been able to pay tbe whole or any portion of the debt, nor that there had been an intent to evade payment. Imprisonment did not follow'as a matter of course under the Act in the event of non-payment. The plaintiff had his remedy by issuing a distress, or in tho event of being able to furnish evidence of the defendant's ability to pay, the case could again be brought on. The summons would be dismissed. M'Beath v. Blackburn. This was also a summons to show cause, the amount sued for being £8 10s. The plaintiff did not appear, and the defendant stated that his earnings, during tbe past twelve months, had not exceeded 12s weekly, out of which he paid 5i rent. Case struck out. Sykes v. Stratton : claim for £6 17s for billiards. Mr Pitt appeared for the defendant who pleaded not indebted, and as a second plea it was urged that the amount sought to be recovered, was alleged to have been incurred prior to the plaintiff having been adjudicated a bankrupt and his obtain ing his discharge. The plaintiff, sworn, stated that the items contained in tho bill of particulars had been incurred aud were due to his personal knowledge. Cross-examined: Defendant had paid certain items, amounting in all to £5 6s. He never received a bill of particulars but saw the books when paying an account in January 1869. Plaintiff was insolvent in 1868, was adjudicated a bankrupt July 24th, 1868, and obtained his discharge March 11th 1869. Tho last item sued for was dated February 26tb, 1869. Mr Pitt contended that the plaintiff must bo nonsuited, as he was not competent to sue, being a bankrupt when the debt was alleged to havo been incurred. He would also urge for costs, as his client had been brought from four miles beyond Charleston, and the case might have been brought in the Court there.

His Worship coincided and nonsuited the plaintiff with costs of Court, and Ms costs to defendant. Plaintiff said he Bhould appeal and raised objections to the ruling of the Bench. His Worship admonished the plaintiff, stating that he had a legal remedy, but he could not permit any reflections to be made when judgment was beiDg given. If repeated the plaintiff would render himself liable to a committal for contempt of Court. WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT Friday, Auoust 12. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) GOLD MINING LEASE. The adjourned application of R. C. Reid for a lease of 16£ acres of ground for the purpose of quartz-reefing, situate at Irishman's Creek, Lyell, was again considered. Mr Pitt appeared to support the application, and Hunter and party as objectors. The adjournment had been granted for the purpose of the objection being amended. The objection set forth the injustice that would accrue to miners generally if a large block of land were granted as a lease, which was capable of being advantageously worked as ordinary mining claims, also, the special injustice to the objectors and others who had taken up ground, if they were deprived of the fruits of four or five months' labor. Tbe fresh grounds of objection were that the applicant had never been in legal possession nor had pegged off the ground according to tbe regulatious. Hunter, sworn : I took up No. 3 south about January 7. There were five in the party at that time and we took in three after. I know nothing whatever about any previous pegging off of the ground as a lease until May 28th, when I received a notice from Mr Munro that the ground was being applied for. No. 3 was already taken up by myself; No. 4 was taken up three weeks or a month after, and No. 5 was, I believe, taken up in June. We have put in a tunnel in No. 3 240 ft long, have erected huts and saw-pits and have been to much trouble conveying truck wheels and other necessaries for working the claim. Six men have been working in the ground from April 3rd until the survey of the ground for a lease on July 6th. The lease includes the claims known as Nos. 3, 4, and s—No. 4 and No. 5 have been represented each by three men holding sis men's ground; there have been four men on No. 3 holding eight men's ground. No. 4 has a tunnel in, but I cannot say what has been done in No. 5. TUcre la u„ JiflEunHj i n connection with the working of the ground other than would be experienced in any ordinary tunnelling claim. Cross-examined by Mr Pitt. I took up No. 3 in January. The shareholders then were, Alfred Duekett, John Hall, John Brown, Chas. Crowie, William Brennan, and myself. The claim was registered on March 3rd. By Warden: We knew nothiug then about an application having been made for a lease. The delay in registering was caused by the length" of time we were engaged in making preparations, and the application was delayed on hand a fortnight or three weeks. We did no work in the claim until the 6th of February. By Mr Pitt : We commenced working the day previous to the application, on the 6th of February. The coincidence may be singular but I shall prove by au independent witness that such was the case. I hold two shares in No. 3, one share I transferred to David Leslie on the 9th inst., and it was re-transferred to me on the 11th. There is no more difficulty in working the ground there than elsewhere, and if there were, we are as likely to get capital as anyone else. I am prepared to admit that the amalgamation of claims and the floating of a company may become an after consideration. I deny ever having said to John Cown that the ground could not be generally worked in ordinary claims. I never spoke about the excessive cost of water supply. I have not made any threats with respect to the applicants for this lease. 1 saw Mr Barnes survey the ground, but I never saw any pegs upon which the survey was based. I know Nos. 1 and 2 south have applied for a lease but I do not think such a course necessary. I am not aware that they require outside capital. I have never said that, if successful iu our opposition, we should amalgamate and apply for a lease. By Warden : I know, as a fact, that Mr Lewis was up on February 7th. We were at work on the ground February 6th and 7th. No one came to peg on those days. We knew nothing of the lease until Mny 28th. AVilliam Davie stated that he recollected about February Ist Hunter having a claim pegged off. At that time he saw no but those in No. 3 claim. Had heard Mr Lewis surveyed the prospectors' claim. It was before Mr Lewis returned from Fern flat, and he believed before he surveyed the prospectors' claim that Hunter had taken up his ground. By Mr Pitt: I am interested in Nos. 1 and 2 South, and am endeavoring to float a Coropauy to work the ground. It would depend upon the capital possessed by the parties or the richness of the reef whether tho reef could be worked in ordinary claims. Water can bo got from tho Lyell, but it will bo an expensive work. I cannot say tho day I first saw Hunter on No. 3. I would not

swear it was not the 6th or 7ch February, but I do not believe it was later. They were tben at work clearing away to put in a tunnel. Hunter desired to correct bia evidence on one point. He bad been in error in stating that tbey took up the ground on January 7, it was February 2, that they took it up. John Campbell stated that he recollected Mr Barnes surveying the ground on July 6. Went with him, and asked if applicant was there to show the pegs, and directed attention to the pegs of No. 3. He examined the bush carefully after May 28, and could find no pegs but those of No. 3 and No. 4, although he examined a larger area than would be required by a lease of 16| acres. Frederick M'Dowell, who holds an an interest in No. 4, stated he took up the ground on March 6. He was not aware of any lease. He bad carefully searched for pegs, but could find none, except such as defined the boundaries of the ordinary claims. Bartholomew Travieux stated he held an interest in No. 5, having pegged the ground off on Juue 6. Had heard a month previously about a lease. His claim is outaido the boundary supposed to have been first fixed for the lease. He objected to the surveyor including his ground. J. Lewis, surveyor, stated that he recollected marking out a lease on February 5. Mr Harris asked him to mark out the ground. He put pegs in four feet long; the line was roughly blazed. He believed Mr Barnes saw two pegs, placed by witness, at the southern end. The boundaries of two claims only, Nos. 1 and 2, were pointed out to me I surveyed the prospectors' lease on July 24. I hold no interest in this lease. Hunter might have pegged out No 3 without my noticing any pegs. I believe I did not take up a sufficient area to include acres. By Mr Pitt: Davie was not there when I pegged out the lease ; I believe he was in the Buller. I pegged 10 Jacres as nearly as I could without measuring. I guesed the distance. The country is rough. By Hunter : I did not go sufficiently to the north, towards the Eight Mile Creek. R. C. Eeid, sworn: I made application for this lease on February 7. I know nothing about the ground being pegged oft'. I did not employ Temperly to peg it off, but I paid him. No one has since besn on the ground on behalf of applicants. I cannot say whether the pegs have been maintained. I derived information from Mr Harris which fed to my applying for a lease, in fact Zala was applying for a water-right. Mr Harris is not a shareholder. Hunter shortly addressed the Court. He urged that his prior posstssion had been made out by his own evidence and that of Davie. As far as capital went he questioned much if those interested in the lease would b better able to work the ground than themselves. If the lease were granted, it would entail much hardship, and in the case oi No. 5, it would be very unjust if they were interfered with, as Mr Lswis did not mark off sufficient ground, and ouly included chains of their claim. He also maintained that the pegging oft' by Mr Lewis, acting upon the instructions of Mr Harris, could not be connected with Mr Reid's application. Mr Pitt held that the objectors had miserably failed in showing a prior possession, or any ground that the lease should not be granted. As identifying the pegging of the ground with the applicant the evidence of Mr Beid was conclusive. He paid Temperly, and that he thought was sufficient evidence that it was done with his knowledge and consent. Mr Lewis acted upon the instructions brought him, and pegged out the ground on the sth February. The evidence of Hunter was, he thought, utterly unreliable ; he first fixes the date of taking up the ground at January 7, and after much cross-examination continues to maintain that was the correct date. He also explains fully the preparations which had entailed the delay in working the ground from January 7 to February G, as also the delay in registering the claim, and long after leaving the box veers round and amends his statement from January 7 to February 2. There was then tho evidence of Davie, who says that Hunter pegged off the grouud in February, and the same day commenced patting in a drive. How are the two state" ments to be reconciled: —Hunter's that a long time lapsed before doing any work in the claim—and Davie's t at the pegging off and preparing for a drive were concurrent ? Then looking at the objection, dated August 9, a document, no doubt, propared after tho most mature consideration, which states that thoy had expended four or five months' labor; that would only bring the dato of taking up to April or March. With respect to the injustice to miners—unquestionably a moat deserving class to whom tho business people woro indebted for tho l'act of thoro beint' in tho locality at all -he would at tho hiiiiio timo urgo that justico must also ho exorcised towards other HoctionH of tho community than minors. Tho statement of Hunter that tho ground could bo equally advantagooiiHly worltod in ordinary claims was simply monstrous. It was disproved by the applications for leases, the amalgamations that had been entered into, and tho efforts to money outside by transferring tho claims to public companies. As a mattor of oxpodioncy, there could

be no question that the granting of the lease was desirable. An attempt had been made to show that the pegs hadnot been maintained.but the evidence on that point was entirely negative. There was the direct statement of Mr Lewis that he put in substantial pegs. There was the plan before them which clearly defined the pegs and boundaries, and it was very certain that the pegs would stand if not removed. If the men took up the ground in the full knowledge, which they must have possessed, that the ground was under application as a mining lease, they could not complain of an injustice. That the ground is protected either until the lease is decided or the same is forfeited by non-compliance with the law, the regulations clearly lay down. The length of time that the lease had been under consideration was certainly not attributable to the applicants, official correspondence would show that. It was due to the fact alone that the services of a surveyor were not obtainublo that tho ground had not been long since surveyed. Under all the circumstances he felt assured the Warden would see fit to grant the application. The Warden expressed his intention to reserve his decision till the following day. A few minor applications for races &c. were then disposed of.