cerning the same by His Honour the State President, dd. 18 July, 1895, regarding suspension of the operation of the proclamation as public diggings of portions of the farms Witfontein, No. 572, and Luipaardsvlei, No. 682, both formerly situated in the district Potchefstroom, Ward Gatsrand, now in the district Krugersdorp;

The Executive Council considering the oral advice of His Honour the State Attorney and of His Honour the Minister of Mines:

Resolves on the suspension of the operation of the aforesaid proclamation for the period of 14 days, and to advise His Honour the State President to cause a proclamation to be placed in the Gazette in accordance herewith.

Executive Council Resolution.

Art. 512, dd. 23 July, 1895.

On the order: Minute R7075/95, containing four telegrams from the Mining Commissioner, Klerksdorp, to the Minister of Mines, regarding the likelihood of irregularities on the proclamation of the farm Palmietfontein, No. 697, district Potchefstroom, ward Schoonspruit, as a public digging on 26 July, 1895.

The Executive Council considering the contents of these telegrams and the advice of the Minister of Mines;

"Resolves: To advise His Honour the State President to suspend the operation of the said proclamation for the period of one month and to cause a proclamation to appear in the Gazette in accordance herewith."

Executive Council Resolution.

Art. 516, dd. 26 July, 1895.

On the order: Minute R6963/95 and R6188/94, in which are mentioned Executive Council Resolution Art. 498, dd. 18 July, '95; Executive Council Resolution Art. 502, dd. 20 July, '95 and Executive Council Resolution Art. 512, dd. 23 July, '95, in pursuance whereof the proclamations were issued, published respectively in the “Gazette Extraordinary" of 20 July, '95 and in the "Gazette" of 24 July, '95.

198

The Executive Council considering that it is necessary, urgent and unavoidable to take measures immediately for the regulation of these matters, having considered the advice of the officials concerned:

Resolves: 1. To propose to the Honourable the Second Volksraad to resolve to take this matter into consideration immediately owing to the urgency thereof.

2. To submit to the Honourable the Second Volksraad the following draft resolution for approval:

"The Second Volksraad, regard being had to the communication of the Government now under consideration containing proclamations by His Honour the State President, dated Pretoria, the 18th, 20th and 23rd day of July, 1895, whereby the operation of the proclamations respectively proclaiming the eastern portion of the farm Witfontein No. 572, formerly situated in the district of Potchefstroom, ward Gatsrand, and now in the district of Krugersdorp, as a public digging from 19 July, 1895, and the operation of the proclamation whereby a portion of the farm Luipaardsvlei No. 682, formerly situated in the district Potchefstroom, ward Gatsrand, now in the district of Krugersdorp, as a public digging on 22 July, 1895, and the operation of the proclamation whereby the farm Palmietfontein No. 697, situated in the district of Potchefstroom, ward Schoonspruit, as a public digging on 26 July, 1895, was provisionally suspended until further decision in the matter; regard being had to the circumstances whereunder these proclamations were issued.

Resolves: 1. To approve of the action of the Government in this matter, these proclamations having been issued in the public interest.

2. That no person whomsoever deeming himself to have suffered damage by this proclamation shall be entitled to compensation out of the Public Treasury or from any official who has been instrumental in carrying out the said proclamations.

3. That no pegging of claims except those under sections 9, 10 and 14 of the so-called Gold Law upon any of the said farms shall be taken into account, but that all pegging on the said farms are declared unlawful and that no licenses shall be issued therefor.

Resolution of the Honourable the Second Volksraad, art. 983, dd. 26 July, 1895.

The Second Volksraad, regard being had to the communication of the Government dd. 26 July, 1895, in the matter of the provisional suspension of the proclamation of Witfontein, No. 572, district Krugersdorp, Luipaardsvlei, No. 682, district Krugersdorp, and Palmietfontein, No. 697, district Potchefstroom, and regard being further had to Executive Council Resolution Art. 516, of to-day's date, whereby a certain draft resolution is submitted by the Executive Council to the Honourable the Second Volksraad for approval and acceptance.

Resolves to agree to the proposal of the Executive Council contained in the said resolution and further resolves to accept the said draft resolution as submitted by the Executive Council as the resolution of the Second Volksraad.

Resolution of the Honourable the Second Volksraad, art. 1012, dd. 31 July, 1895:

The Second Volksraad, regard being had to the communication of the Government now under consideration proposing that the Honourable the Second Volksraad authorise the Government to postpone the proclamations of the farms Witfontein and Luipaardsvlei further and for at least 3 weeks.

Resolves to agree to this proposal and authorises the Government to postpone the proclamations of these farms until such time as proper provision has been made for the survey of the claims and the obtaining of licenses on such farms and the Government is enabled to take sufficient precautions for the maintenance of law and order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. In the matter of J. Rothkugel, Plaintiff, versus Dr. W. J. Leyds, N. O., and A. A. J. C. Dieperink, Defendants. Plaintiff's Replication.

And replying to Defendants' Plea the Plaintiff says:

That where the Defendants deny the allegations contained in Plaintiff's summons he joins issue with them and prays for judgment in his favour with costs.

And replying to the Special Plea Plaintiff says:

1. That he denies that on the 18 July, 1895, the said proclamation was withdrawn and says that even if the Executive Council passed any such resolution with reference to the suspension such resolution is of no legal effect and even if of legal force then the same is of no force until published for the information of the public which took place only after the proclamation of the farm came into effect and Witfontein was a public digging; that he denies that the public at Doornkop was notified of the alleged suspension and says that even if such was the case such notice cannot diminish or affect his rights; and denies all the further allegations contained in the said Plea and therefore prays for judgment in his favour with

costs.

And replying to the 2nd Special Plea the Plaintiff says that he repeats what is above set forth and says that the resolutions mentioned in the 2nd plea cannot affect his rights.

Wherefore the Plaintiff persists in his claim as formulated and prays for judgment in his favour with costs.

Pretoria, 26 October, 1895.

J. W. WESSELS,
Counsel for Plaintiff.

H. SCHOLTZ,

Attorney for Plaintiff.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBlic. In the matter of J. Rothkugel, Plaintiff, versus Dr. W. J. Leyds, N. O., and Dieperink, N. O., Defendants.

Defendants' Duplication.

And duplicating on Plaintiff's Replication the Defendants say: That they join issue with Plaintiff regarding the denials therein contained. Further they deny the allegations and conclusions

of law therein set forth and persist in the defence recorded by them. Pretoria, the 29 October, 1895.

H. CLOETE,

J. HUMMEL, per H. C.,
Counsel for Defendants.

CARL UECKERMANN, SR.,

Attorney for Defendants.

NOTES OF JUDGE KOTZE. (Chief Justice.)

Saturday, 12 June, 1897.

Coram Chief Justice, Jorissen, J., Morice, J.

Elias Syndicate vs. Dr. Leyds, N. O., and Dieperink, N. O.

Wessels with De Wet for Plaintiff.

Esselen with Coster and Hummel for Defendants.

Action for Damages.
Summons Read.

Coster: A claim is made for damages but no new summons has been taken out. No particulars are given from which one can judge what the damage is. Further he does not allege that he has made application for the licences and has taken these out and wished to peg thereunder, but for some reason or other for which he is not accountable he has not been able to do so, etc.

Wessels: Order of the Court is not that we shall take out a new summons. The Court merely ordered that the question of damages should stand over. The Defendants are in the best position to know whether we were able to take out the licences.

The Court is of opinion that the case should so far as possible now be heard nunc pro tunc and consequently disallows Coster's objection.