The Registrar ( Mr. Archibald Mackay ) sat at Camborne on Monday.

Mr. Chenx ( Mr. Stranss's agent had about 700 claims to present. These were made by a large nnmber of shareholders in Cornish mines, to be placed on the ownership : and occupiers' lists, by reason of their holdings in mines.

Mr. C. V. Thomas ( supported by Messrs. Daniell and Wellington Dale appeared for Mr. Strauss; and Mr. Bray ( assisted by Messrs. Kempthorne and Grylls ) for Mr. Conybeare.

Mr. Thomas stated that and his friend had consented to take the case of John Andrew.—Mr. Bray objected to the claim the ground that Dolcoath being partly in Illogan the claim had not been presented Illogan.

Mr. Thomas went on to state that Dolcoath mine is in 4,700 shares, of which John Andrew holds at present, and had held for sufficient length of time to qualify, eleven shares   The lease of the mine was granted in 1883 to Messrs George Williams. William Rabling. and Josiah Thomas, guarantors on behalf of other shareholders. Consequently they became the trustees of the company, John Andrew being one of that company. The property had on it occupied engine and account-houses; therefore the shares which John Andrew held as partner in this concern were sufficient value to entitle him under the Acts of  1867 and 1884 to a legal parliamentary vote, and under the Act of 1867 particularly he was clearly entitled to a vote as joint occupier.

The Registrar : Your claim is that he pays his propor-tionate part of the rates and rent?— Mr. Thomas: Yes, sir.   Mr. Thomas then went to press the claim on the ground of ownership, and showed that his client had been always in possession of a clear annual value of over £50, and that on this valuation the proportionate part of dues were paid.—The Registrar : How can you say the dues were paid unless there is a claim in the deed stating what each adventurer has to pay?— Mr. Thomas: The adventurers came to that in their resolution with the trustees.

Mr. Bray, opposing the claim, stated that under the Reform Act of 1832 John Andrew was neither lessee nor assignee, which he must be to be entitled to a vote.  Further, that the instrument granted to Messrs. Williams, Rabling. and Thomas was a license to mine for minerals and nothing more, and further, that on this very sett there were houses, gardens, and farms, the occupiers and owners of which al- ready possessed votes.   He then cited cases which had been ruled by learned barons and justices, proving that share-holders in mines worked on the cost-book system were not entitled to vote.

The learned and Hon. Registrar, in summing up referred also to two other cases, and stated there was no claim, certainly not as occupier. On Mr. Thomas pressing for a case for a Higher Court, the Registrar stated that he would consider the matter on the ground of ownership only, and answer in a day or two.

The Revising Barrister sat again at Camborne on Tuesday morning, when Mr. C. V. Thomas, acting for Mr. Cheux, agent for Mr. Strauss, presented a claim on behalf of the shareholders of the South Condurrow mine.—Mr. Bray opposed.

Mr. Thomas stated that South Condurrow is a dividend- paying mine, and rated very high in the parish of Cam-borne.  The mine consists of 165 shareholders, some of whom, at least, are on these grounds entitled to an ownership vote.—Mr. Bray inquired as to whether there had recently been a great reduction in dues. Mr. Thomas ad-mitted that that was so.

The Revising Barrister here remarked that the clear annual value was the amount of dues paid to the lord.— Mr. Thomas : The amount paid during the last twelve months was £478, and he took it that the value of the mine should be in this way.   Supposing the present company should hand over the mine to the lord, the amount an in-coming company would give for her would be her real valuation.

Mr. Bray contended that apart from every other consideration unless the amount paid in dues would entitle each shareholder to a clear annual value of .£10, any at-tempt at a claim would be absurd.—The Revising Barrister stated that each shareholder must be entitled or not. It could not possibly be that in a company such as that a portion of the shareholders were entitled to vote and others not.

Mr. Thomas then informed the Revising Barrister that if instructed to further move in the matter of mine share claims he should confine himself to Dolcoath only.

11 lodger claims were then presented by Mr. Cheux—four of which were allowed.

Mr. Bray objected to the claim of Mr. Hill, Angarrack, and his three sons—the latter having claimed as joint partners with their father.—Mr. Hill, sen., on being questioned, admitted that the lease was in his name, that he was sole proprietor, and that he had no agreement with his sons as to the division of profits.—The objection was ruled to be correct, and father and sons were struck off the list.

Mr. Bray inquired as to whether or not a claim would be put in for the shareholders in Wheal Grenville. (Laughter.) 

Cornishman - Thursday 14 September 1893