صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Article 61a of Law 14 of 1894 corresponds with Article 66 of Law 19 of 1895, while Article 61c is left out of Law 19 of 1895.

4. The expenses of surveying the claims thus surveyed shall have to be paid to the Government by the claimholder immediately on issue of the license, in default of which the Mining Commissioner or Responsible Clerk is entitled to refuse the license, in which case these claims shall be dealt with in terms of Article 61b of the Gold Law.

Article 61b of Law 14 of 1894 corresponds with Article 89 of Law 19 of 1895.

5. In case, on the day of throwing open, all the claims have not yet been surveyed, only the claims which have been surveyed or reduced to diagram shall be drawn for. The remaining claims shall however as speedily as possible be surveyed and drawn for on a day to be fixed by the head of the Mining Department, of which drawing at least three weeks' notice must be given in the "Staatscourant."

6. The manner of drawing lots shall be regulated by the head of the Mining Department in consultation with the Government, while after the termination of every drawing a report must be sent in by the Mining Commissioner as soon as possible to the head of the Mining Department.

7. These regulations come into force immediately after publication in the "Staatscourant."

No. 247.

R. 8030/95.

Government Notice and Regulations, 20th August, 1895.

Government Notice.

For general information are herewith published the following Regulations for drawing lots for claims on private and Government ground in accordance with the resolution of the Executive Council, Article 603 of its Minutes, dated 20th August, 1895.

Government Office, Pretoria,

20th August, 1895.

DR. W. J. Leyds,

State Secretary.

168

Regulations.

For the drawing of lots for claims on private and Government ground, approved by resolution of the Hon. Second Volksraad, Article 1,129, dated 2nd August, 1895, and accepted as notice by resolution of the Hon. First Volksraad, Article 916, dated 14th August, 1895.

In consequence of the above Regulations, and for the carrying out of the same, the Government has deemed fit to give out, by way of drawing lots, the claims on the portion of the farm Witfontein, No. 572, formerly in the district of Potchefstroom, now in the district of Krugersdorp, and portion of Luipaardsvlei, No. 682, formerly in the district of Potchefstroom, now in the district of Krugersdorp, and Palmietfontein, No. 697, in the district of Potchefstroom, which will be proclaimed respectively on the 30th of August, 1895, 2nd of September, 1895, and the 27th of August, 1895.

The manner in which the drawing for the claims must take place shall be as follows:

(1) In accordance with the above-mentioned regulations the claims, as surveyed and reduced to diagram in blocks of six claims on the above-mentioned farms by the Surveyor-General, shall be drawn for.

(2) The person or persons who are present on the day of proclamation on the ground to be proclaimed shall be entitled to obtain gratis one ticket for each person on each of the farms to be proclaimed, provided he produces his receipt or certificate to show that he has paid his personal taxes for the current year.

(3) The number of tickets shall be regulated according to the number of persons who, on the day of proclamation and after the reading of the same, shall be present on the ground to be proclaimed and who shall be obliged to present themselves to the Mining Commissioner or Responsible Clerk, and to give him notice, after production of the receipt for personal taxes, that they wish to take part in the drawing.

(4) The drawing for claims takes place on the day of proclamation, and if necessary on the following days, and shall commence directly after the reading of the proclamation.

(5) When the number of persons present, who wish to take part in the drawing, exceeds the number of blocks of 6 (six) claims,

blank tickets must be put into the drum after the tickets on which the blocks of 6 (six) claims in due sequence on each ticket have been noted have been placed in it.

(6) The names of the persons who wish to take part shall be placed in drum No. 1, and the tickets with the number and the numbers (six claims) and the blank tickets in drum No. 2. The official charged with the drawing shall have to draw a ticket out of drum No. 2, while an official to be named by the head of the Mining Department shall have to draw a name out of drum No. 1.

(7) The Claim Inspector shall be obliged to point out to each person who has drawn a ticket representing claims the pegs and the situation of such claims.

(8) The head of the Mining Department shall have to exercise due supervision and to instruct the officials from time to time in accordance with these regulations.

EXHIBIT 22.

Opinion of H. J. Hofmeyr.

THOMAS P. GALT, Esq., K. C.,

Offices, Bank of Toronto,

DEAR SIR:

Cor. Wellington & Church Streets,
Toronto, Canada.

In re Claim of the Estate of R. E. Brown vs. Great Britain.

In reply to your request for my opinion as to the effect of the judgment of the 2nd March, 1898, in the above action whereby the Court dismissed Brown's application with costs but gave leave to issue a new summons against the Government should he elect to do so, I beg to state that I am in entire accord with the opinion given by Messrs. Rooth & Wessels at that time, namely, that such decision was incorrect and unjustifiable and it would have been perfectly useless for Mr. Brown to proceed further with his action before that Court.

In the judgment delivered by the Chief Justice on the 22nd of January, 1897, the following passage appears:

170

"Should it appear that it has become impossible for the Plaintiff to peg off under the prospecting license the 1200 specific claims either in whole or in part which he had already pegged on the 19th of July, 1895, it will become necessary for the Court to determine the amount of damages. We can do no more at present, for although the plaintiff is entitled to compensation against the State by reason of the unlawful conduct of an official acting upon the instruction of the Government, the onus of showing with more or less definiteness and as nearly as possible the amount of damage lies on him and the evidence which he has submitted on this point is too vague and uncertain to enable us to base any satisfactory calculation thereon. In the event of the Court being called upon to fix the damages later on further and more satisfactory evidence with respect thereto will after notice served upon the Government have to be laid before us."

In accordance with this judgment of the Court, the order of Court of the 22nd of January, 1897, not having been complied with, the late Mr. Brown's attorneys, Messrs. Rooth & Wessels, through one of their partners, Mr. H. Malherbe, served a notice upon the Government setting down Brown's case for the hearing of further evidence and argument on the question of damages, the date of hearing being fixed for March 2nd, 1898. The course adopted was in exact accordance with the terms of the judgment of the 22nd of January, 1897, and precisely the same procedure was followed as was adopted in the then recent case of the Elias Syndicate. When the matter came before the Court on the 2nd of March, 1898, counsel for the Government contended inter alia that Chief Justice Kotze's judgment had been complied with by the issue of the license, and such being the case the plaintiff was not entitled to damages. In answer to this contention Mr. Wessels (now Sir John Wessels, and one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa) pointed out that the license issued to the plaintiff pursuant to the judgment was not in any sense the license contemplated by the Gold Law, which is renewable from month to month, but simply a worthless piece of paper, as the endorsement provided that "These claims. cannot be renewed as they encroach upon owners' and vergunning claims," and he further contended that the whole point at issue was one merely affecting the mode of procedure and that the question as to whether the judgment of the Court in the original case had een complied with or not was purely one for evidence. In spite,

however, of Mr. Wessels' contention the Court accepted the ex parte statement of Dr. Coster, the counsel for the Government, that the judgment had entirely been complied with and directed that if the plaintiff desired to proceed further he must issue a fresh summons. Under the practice of our Courts it is not open to question that if Brown had availed himself of the leave to issue a new summons the Government would have been entitled by their pleas to reopen the whole question in dispute, and have a retrial of the case, in other words, Brown's judgment of the 22nd of January which had not been appealed against would have been practically reopened. It was quite manifest that the attitude of the Court was distinctly hostile to Brown, and that the judgment was entirely unjustifiable. Such being the case the only conclusion to be arrived at is that it would have been quite impossible for Brown to obtain justice before a Court capable of giving such a decision. I, therefore, advised Brown that in my opinion it was quite useless for him to proceed further with his action or to expect redress from the Courts in the Transvaal. In other words, I believe that Brown did everything possible to obtain redress in the Transvaal Courts and it was only when it became perfectly apparent that the Court had determined not to grant him redress that he desisted on the advice of his Counsel and Solicitors from throwing away further money in the prosecution of his claim.

I may state that the contention that the Government had complied with Chief Justice Kotze's judgment is a puerile one inasmuch as the endorsement made the license absolutely worthless. At the time Chief Justice Kotze's judgment was rendered Mr. Brown was not in this country, but was represented by Mr. Oakes, who consulted me throughout as to the proper course to be adopted, and I am well aware that everything humanly possible was done to obtain. the proper license, but Mr. Oakes was met with frivolous objections on the part of the authorities, who were evidently determined that no effective license should be given. No defence was raised by the Government in the action that the claims pegged by the late Mr. Brown encroached upon other holdings, and had they desired to raise any defence which might have reduced the number of Brown's claims such question should have been raised at the trial, but the only point upon which the Government relied was the question of the legality of the proclamation withdrawing pegging.

the ground from

« السابقةمتابعة »