Skip to Content

Colonial Cases

Peters v. McMinn and Kryke, 1874

[mining law]


 

Peters v. McMinn and Kryke

Warden's Court, Shackle
Frampton, 23 June 1874
Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 24 July 1874, pp 2-3


 

LAW COURTS.

WARDEN'S COURT, SHACKLE.

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 23.

(Before Warden Frampton.)

WALTER PETERS V. MCMINN & KYRKE.

Application to be put in possession of No. 2 South, Union Reef, abandoned ground.

Mr. Smith appeared for the applicant.

Mr. McMinn as objector handed in a protest that as the claim had been pegged out and registered, the Court had no jurisdiction. He had applied for a lease and did not intend to make any defence in that Court.

E. Kyrke then appeared to object to Peters being put in possession on the grounds that they had previously applied to the Warden to be put in possession, but his case had never been heard; more than that, he had actually worked the ground until the Warden informed him. not to do so until the case was settled. The case had not yet been heard before a Warden, and the Commission informed him that he could not appear before them as an objector as the dispute arose before the first of March The Warden considered that the objector had not been fairly dealt with, but the fault was that of the executive in closing the Warden's Court. The objector could have no redress now except before the Commission. The following evidence was adduced.

Otto Peters who said he knew Walter Peters, was acting as his agent; made application for the claim on the fourth of June, looked over the ground and it did not appear to be worked.

Leonard Meyder had been living on the Union line of Reef since the beginning of January; was there in June last and saw Peters there. He drew his attention to the claim, no one worked it, and no one was camped upon it as he knew of. Did not see or know of any work done at all.

Louis Niesche knew No. 2 South Union; had been along the reef constantly and saw no work done; had been living there since January. Frederick Sebbes had seen No. 2 South Union Reef and no work of any description was done on it.

Verdict for applicant, the objector not having been upheld.

 

Source: Northern Territory Times and Gazette, 15 August 1874, p 3
 

Warden's Court.
TO THE EDITOR.

Sir-I think that whoever is your informant of legal proceedings at the Shackle he ought to confine himself a little more to facts before publishing peoples' names in the paper. In a case that came before Warden Frampton on the 14th July last, entitled "Peters v. McMinn and Kyrke," he says that I appeared as witness, and gave evidence, when I did nothing of the sort, as I was at Sandy Creek on the day in question. I certainly received a summons to appear, but being of the same opinion as Mr. McMinn, viz., that the Warden had no jurisdiction in the matter, I did not think it worth attending to. Your informant, moreover, states that I have been informed by the Commission that I could not appear before them as an objector against No. 2 south, Union Reef, which is also untrue, as I have in my possession a note from Mr. Melville, Secretary to the Commission, dated the 6th June last, stating that I could appear before the Commission is an objector. With regard to some of the witnesses who gave evidence that no work had been done on the claim, all I can say is that their eyesight must be defective; for I do not think it would much improve their health if they happened to fall down some of the holes made there.
I am, Sir, &c.,
E. KYRKE.

Published by Centre for Comparative Law, History and Governance at Macquarie Law School