H.--34

2

Crown land ; and upon the Warden asserting that he had jurisdiction, and expressing his determination to hear and adjudicate upon the said complaint, the counsel for the said Company applied for and obtained an adjournment of the hearing of the said complaint, in order to enable the said Company to apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition. 8. That the said Bright Smile Gold Mining Company accordingly applied for and obtained a rule nisi for a writ of prohibition in the said matter. 9. That the said Company having retained all the principal barristers in Auckland on their behalf, your petitioners applied to the Provincial Government of the Province of Auckland, and the then Superintendent of the said province (Mr. Gillies) obtained and placed the services of the learned AttorneyGeneral at the disposal of your petitioners in the said suit. 10. That after much litigation, and in consequence of the difficulties involved in the question in dispute, your petitioners were advised to, and did on the 19th day of July, 1872, compromise the said litigation, upon the terms that, in consideration of your petitioners foregoing their claim for an account of the gold taken or won out of their said claim by the said Bright Smile Gold Mining Company, the said Company withdraw all claim to the minerals within your petitioners' said claim. 11. That your petitioners were informed and believe that the said Bright Smile Gold Mining Company had taken out of your petitioners' said claim about 500 ounces of gold. 12. That after the passing of " The Gold Mining Districts Act, 1871," your petitioners, under the power contained in section 118 of that Act, applied to exchange their title to the claim held under the said " Gold Fields Act, 1866," for a license under the said " Gold Mining Districts Act, 1871." 13. That your petitioners' said application was duly advertised, and all the forms prescribed by the said Act were complied with, but no objection was made to your petitioners' said application, and a license was duly issued to your petitioners under the said Act, which license by section 18 of the said Act gives to your petitioners an indefeasible right to all gold within the boundaries of the land comprised therein, and an indefeasible right to dig and mine for gold therein and thereon, and dispose of the same, to erect machinery on sucli land, and to construct works connected therewith, and to do all lawful acts incident or conducive to the carrying out of these objects. 14. /That immediately after your petitioners made the aforesaid arrangement with the said Bright Smile Gold Mining Company (Registered), viz. in the month of August, 1872, the said Robert Graham commenced an action in the Supreme Court against your petitioners for trespassing on the surface of lots 623 and G24 of the Township of Grahamstown, and being the same land as is hereinbefore referred to as part of Kauwaeranga No. 4 and Kauwaeranga No. 5, and also part of the land included in your petitioners' said license. 15. That your petitioners cannot, nor can any of the claimholders on the hill-side of your petitioners' claim, obtain a road out of their respective claims without passing over the land claimed by the said Robert Graham. 16. That your petitioners, believing and being advised as aforesaid that the said laud was Crown land, defended the said action, and as a defence set up their title under the Gold Fields Act in justification of the alleged trespass. 17. That the said action was tried in the month of April, 1873, before his Honor Justice Johnston and a special jury, and a verdict was found in favour of your petitioners upon the ruling of the learned Judge. 18. That immediately after the said trial the said Robert Graham applied for and obtained a rule nisi for a new trial in the said action, upon the ground that the ruling of the learned Judge was erroneous, and after argument the said rule was made absolute and a new trial ordered, and it was also ordered that each party should pay his own costs. The costs of your petitioners amounted to £300. 19. That the second trial of the said cause was had in the month of February, 1874, before his Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury, which trial lasted five days and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, the jury finding that the locus in quo was not Crown land. 20. That the jury gave the plaintiff one farthing damages, but the costs of the case, amounting to about £1,000, followed the result. 21. That ever since the opening of the gold field in April, 1868, the said land has always been considered both by the miners and the officers of the Crown as being Crown land within the meaning of the Gold Fields Acts in force in this colony. 22. That as your petitioners could not work their said claim without passing over the land claimed by the said Robert Graham, your petitioners were compelled to and did purchase the said Robert Graham's interest in the same for the sum of £675. Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that your honorable House will be good enough to take the circumstances of your petitioners' case into consideration, and grant to your petitioners such relief as to your honorable House may seem meet. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. William Thomas. John McCabe. Bonald McDonald. James McCabe. William Barker. P. Walsh. James Stewart,

Enclosure 2 in No. 1. Extracts from Minute Book of Gold Fields Committee referring to the Petition of William Thomas and Others. Tuesday, August 18, 1874.—The petition of William Thomas and others was then considered by the Committee and read by the Chairman, and was postponed until the next meeting, that Mr. Sheelian may be in attendance to give evidence in the matter.