MINING LEASES AND RESIDENCE AREAS,

Inangahua Times, Volume II, 22 June 1881, Page 2

MINING LEASES AND RESIDENCE AREAS,

; * In the Court of Mines tosday, Jones v. Uhrietpnsen was a special case stated by the Judge of the Court of Mines, Sand* hurst, and involving the importaut point as to whether a nrning lose can be granted over land held under a residence are*. It appeared that the complainants in the Conrt below were the holders of a gold mining lease over a residence area. The occupier of the latter had mined upon his land and gone to a greater depth than 100 feet, and the holders of the lease then proceeded ngainst him for trespass. It was admitted that the plains tifs were lessees of the land and the defendants lawfully in possession of the residence site ; also that the latter had mined for gold to a greater depth than 100 feef. The judge held that tbe de fendanis were trespassers, and gave a ver.iiet for the plaintiffs. Mr Webb and Mr Casey appeared to support the decision of the judge, and Mr Helm and Mr A'Beckett for the appellmts. Mr Helm argued that land occupied by a residence area ho?drr er.j>yed the same advantages as if it was held under miner's r'glif, and that a mining lease could not be granted in respect to it withont the consent of the owner. Under these circumstances, he contended that altiiouch the occupier of a residence area was him self prevented from mining, he held the land to tbe centre of the earth. Mr A'Beckett said the Court hod not to consider whether the defendants, the residence area holders, were justified in mining, l>ut whether the pluintiffs were really in possession and had a right to complain of trespass, a lease gave no title to a residence area unless compensation hud beeu made, or consent given ; and as there was no evidence that these conditions had been fulfilled, it was to be presumed they had cot been. Mr Webb, on tbe other side, argued that a lease i might be granted on land occupied as a residence area, so long as the rights of (be residence area holder were not inters fered with. All that tbe residence area holder was entitled to, as bad been de* ci led, was the surface, with sufficient soil to support it. It was admitted that the lease was regularly applied for and that proper notice was served upon the residence area holders. It was therefore to be assumed that they 8-sented to the mining, as there was nothing to show that they assented. Mr Casey followed on the same side. After Mr Helm had re« plied. Mr Justice Molesworth said the case raised an important question, as a great many mining leases had been granted in respect to residence areas, and his ruling would decide whether lease* holders were or were not warranted in mining under rusidence areas. He re* ser7ed his decision.