IN THE HIGH Court of THE S. A. REpublic. In the matter of: R. E. Brown, Plaintiff, versus The Government of the S. A. Republic, Defendants. re Witfontein. SIR: Be pleased to take notice that in the peroration of our Summons par. (a) between the words "peg" and "1,200" in line 2 the words "the said" have been inadvertently omitted and that at the hearing of the case we will request the Court to insert these words, further that we will amend our summons by making an alternative claim for damages, the amount whereof will be notified you later. Your obedient servant, MR. CARL UECKERMANN, SR., H. L. MALHERBE, Attorney for the Defendant, Pretoria. Pretoria, this 5 September, A. D. 1895. IN THE HIGh Court of THE S. A. Republic. In the matter of: R. E. Brown, Plaintiff, versus Dr. W. J. Leyds, Alternative Claim. Alternatively the Plaintiff says: 1. That he respectfully refers this Honourable Court to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Summons and prays that the same may be considered as herein inserted. 2. That the value of the said 1,200 claims is the sum of £372,400 stg. and that in case the licenses therefor are not issued by the second Defendant to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff will suffer damage the said amount. in Wherefore Plaintiff prays that the First Defendant shall in the alternative be ordered to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of £372. 400 stg. or that Plaintiff may obtain such other or further relief as to this Honourable Court may seem meet. Pretoria, Oct., 1895. J. W. WESSELS, A. MULLER, pro J. S. CURLEWIS, Counsel for Plaintiff. H. L. MALHERBE, Attorney for Plaintiff. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE S. A. REPUBLIC. In the matter of: R. E. Brown, Plaintiff, versus W. J. Leyds, N. O., and A. A. J. C. Dieprink, N. O., Defendants. Replication. And replying to Defendants' Plea the Plaintiff says: 1. That where the Defendants deny the allegations contained in the Summons he joins issue with them. 2. That he denies the allegations and conclusions in law contained in the first special plea of the Defendants and says that even if a so-called provisional withdrawal or suspension of the proclamation took place the same was entirely unlawful and of no force and cannot affect the rights of Plaintiff. 3. That he denies the allegations of fact and conclusions of law. contained in Defendants' second special plea, while acknowledging the passing of the Resolutions therein mentioned, and he says that these Resolutions are of no force as against Plaintiff and do not apply to the circumstances of this action and cannot affect Plaintiff's rights. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. In the matter of: R. E. Brown, Plaintiff, versus Dr. W. J. Leyds, N. O., and Dieperink, N. O., Defendants. say: Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Alternative Claim. And answering Plaintiff's alternative claim the Defendants 1. That for the sake of brevity they respectfully refer this Honourable Court to the denials and allegations contained in the various sections of their pleadings and special pleadings already filed herein and request that the same may be considered as repeated herein. 2. That they deny the allegations contained in Section 2 of the said alternative claim. costs. Wherefore they pray that the said claim may be dismissed with Pretoria, the 18th October, 1895. H. CLOETE, Counsel for Defendants. CARL UECKERMANN, SR., Attorney for the Defendants. IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN REPUBLIC. In the matter of: R. E. Brown, Plaintiff, versus Dr. W. J. Leyds, N. O., and Dieperink, N. O., Defendants. Defendant's Duplication And duplicating on the Plaintiff's Replication the Defendants say that save and except the admissions therein contained they deny the further allegations and conclusions of law therein set forth; they join issue with Plaintiff and pray that his claim may be dismissed with costs. Pretoria, the 18th October, 1895. Counsel for Defendants. CARL UECKERMANN, SR., Attorney for the Defendants. Brown versus Dr. W. J. Leyds, N. O., and Dieperink, N. O. WESSELS with CURLEWIS for Plaintiff. CLOETE with HUMMEL & STATE ATTORNEY for Defendants. Summons and Pleadings read. WESSELS calls: ROBERT EDWARD BROWN (duly sworn): I am Plaintiff in this case. I know the farm Witfontein. I knew that the farm would be open on 19 July, 1895. I had read the proclamation thereof in the Gazette. On the morning of 19 July there was more or less a crowd of people at the office of the Reponsible Clerk at Doornkop. Mr. Melville stated that the Responsible Clerk said no licenses would be issued till 10 o'clock that morning. This was said at 8.30 a.m. The Responsible Clerk announced this and Melville interpreted. I then went to my office near the office of the Responsible Clerk. I wrote out a demand or letter to the Responsible Clerk to the effect that in my opinion he had illegally deferred the issue of licenses to 10 o'clock. (A. 1. is the document.) I went to Dieperink, Responsible Clerk, and said I had a document for him. At first he would not take it. However, he took it, read it and put it in his pocket. This was about 8.30. I tendered him the money. About a 14 past 9 Dieperink came along and read two telegrams to the effect that the proclamation had been suspended. I then went into the office of Dieperink and said to him that I considered the telegrams of postponement were of no force and I demanded that he should place in writing for me his refusal to issue licenses. This he would not do, but when I insisted on the point with him he said that he would make an endorsement on my notice (A. 1.) that I had tendered the money and that he would later write me a formal letter. But as far as I know he has not done this. I also exhibited to Dieperink my receipt for my personal tax. B. 1. is the receipt. I had made arrangements to give signals from Doornkop to Witfontein by means of a heliograph or sun flashes. I went about 1⁄2 a mile from Doornkop to my first station and sent messages to proceed with the pegging. Doornkop is about 20 miles from Witfontein. I also myself rode to Witfontein. I arrived there about the middle of the day and saw that all was pegged by my agents. J. R. Stevens had instructions to peg for me. I am a Mining Engineer and know the Rand well and have had experience in America. I acted in the pegging entirely for myself. I am well acquainted with the value of Witfontein. I estimate that the 1,200 claims had an average value of £400 per claim. Two well-known reefs pass through the 1,200 claims. I had about 2 or 3 months before made up my mind about the ground. Cross-examined: The main reef series of the Rand has not yet been discovered on Witfontein. The nearest point where the series has been discovered is Randfontein, about 8 miles to the east of Witfontein. The "theoretical outcrop" of the main reef series is 500 feet to the north of my block of claims. The Kimberley reef series is on my claims and I think the Bird reef series also. I know there are people who claim vergunning claims on the farm. I know that their title is disputed and is not good. I think 3 to 400 vergunning claims of this nature are included in the 1,200 claims which I have pegged. On the morning of setting open there were at least 150 persons at Doornkop. As a fact I tendered the money before and after the reading of the telegrams by Dieperink. I found all the ground pegged off when I arrived at Witfontein about 12 o'clock. I know that my agents have pegged over ground which is unjustly claimed by others as vergunning claims. Re-examined: I have taken legal advice and I was also acquainted with the circumstances and judgment in the Gauf case. I have received no demand from any holder of vergunning claims. Of the land which I have pegged a portion has been issued under diggers' licenses, but how much I do not know. As far as I know no one is working on the ground. After I had pegged the ground I sent surveyors to survey it and erect beacons and this has been done. EDWARD HARKER VINCENT MELVILLE (duly sworn): I have heard the evidence of Brown. He has spoken the truth. I also was there that morning. I am acquainted with Witfontein |