THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE EUREKA AND FIERY GROSS EXTENDED.

Inangahua Times, Volume VII, Issue 1060, 13 March 1882, Page 2

THE DISPUTE BETWEEN THE EUREKA AND FIERY GROSS EXTENDED.

In the Warden's Court on Friday a case that had been looked forward to with considerable interest in mining circles came on for hearing. It was an application on the part of the Eureka Company for the cancellation of one of the areas now held by the Fiery Cross, formerly known as the Long Drive lease. The grounds on which the cancellation was claimed were first that the ground had not been manned as required by law for the last six months ; second, that the company had failed to furnish to the Government true and accurate returns as required by the Goldfields Regulations of July 32th, 1878. Further that for six months previous they had discontinued bona tide mining upon the ground, and that it was at present held for purely speculative purposes. Mr Perkins, with him Mr Jones, appeared for the Eureka, Mr Lynch for the Fiery Cross Company. In introducing the case, Mr Perkins said that a certain amount of odium always attached to applications for the cancellation of a lease, but in this case the Eureka Company had excellent grounds for taking the course they were doing. Owing to the relative positions of the leases all approach to the ground of the latter company was blocked up, and the Fiery Cross asked such exorbitant terms for permitting access through their ground that in self-defence the Eureka had no other course open than this. He proceeded to say that every effort had been made by the Eureka to bring matters to an amicable settlement but without avail, and hence the present steps. The Fiery Cross held three leases, their original one, the Alexandra, and the Long Drive. The applicants did not want the ground of the latter, they only wanted to obtain ingress to and egress from their own. The Warden asked if there was no possibility of an equitable settlement being arrived at between the parties instead of proceeding with the case. It was always usual to allow tunnels on proper compensation being made, and in this instance if a settlement could be come to it would be advisable. Mr Perkins had stated that the applicants did not care for the ground, and it would be better to make terms rather than risk having the lease in question, cancelled. Of course, the Eureka would have to pay any proved damage. He was willing to adjourn the case for half an hour to see if any compromise could be effected, and he thought it would be better to do bo. An adjournment accordingly took place, but at its conclusion Mr Perkins said that the parties had been unable to agree, and the case went on, the first witness called being Alexander Notman, one of the directors of the Eureka. After his examination had proceeded some time, Mr Lynch rose and said that as it appeared the applicants merely wanted to tunnel through the Long Drive claim there need be no further question about it. The Fiery Cross Company never had any objection to the Eureka going through there, it was to a tunnel through the other leases that they alone objected to and required payment for. This statement caused the most perfect surprise in Court alike to the Warden and the applicants, but it was at once accepted, and proceedings came to an abrupt conclusion in consequence, to the apparently great satisfaction of all parties concerned. It was arranged that the application should be adjourned till the next Court, arrangements in consonance with the altered state of things to be made between the parties in the interval, after which it would be withdrawn.