Not Forfeited

Argument About N.G. Gold Claim

From Our Own Correspondent.

Rabaul, Nov. 14.

AN appeal case came before Chief Judge Wanliss recently from the War den’s Court at Wau.

The appellant was New Guinea Allu vials, Ltd., the holder of a sluicing claim.

The respondent, Hyde, was a holder of a miner’s right.

In spite of reminders from the Warden, the appellant company had not paid rent on the claim at July 12, when it had be come due on December 31st. On July, 14, the appellant paid to the Warden a sum equivalent to the rental due, plus a penalty as laid down in the Ordinance.

A receipt was issued by the Warden’s office and marked “without prejudice.”

On July 11, the respondent, Hyde, made application to the Warden for the claim which, he stated, had become liable to forfeiture.

At the Warden’s Court, Wau, on August 10, the plaint was heard and the Warden declared that the claim was for feited, stating the rent had been received “without prejudice” and that any default, in compliance with the conditions prior to the commencement of the action for forfeiture, could not be remedied by any action to correct default after an action had been commenced.

The reasons for the appeal were that, prior to the date of August 11, the Ad ministrator had waived forfeiture of the claim for non-payment of rent, and also that the Warden’s Court had no jurisdic tion to declare the claim forfeited for non payment of rent.

In giving his judgment, His Honour stated that the language of Regulation (57 was far from clear. Subsection 3 enacts that if default is made in the payment of rent the claim shall be forfeited — taken by itself that would mean that the claimholder’s interest ceased unless the rent was paid on or before December 31.

But two provisions modified this meaning.

One provided that, within ninety days after the rent became due, forfeiture might be avoided by the payment of the rent, plus certain sums in addition. That proviso meant that for that period the claim was forfeited, but not forfeitable, and that by compliance with its terms the claimholder might render the claim non-forfeitable. The second proviso stated that after a lapse of ninety days the Administrator may waive such for feiture upon the payment of the rent, to gether with such sum by way of penalty as he thinks fit to impose.

The result, concluded His Honour, was that it rested with the Administrator — not with the Warden —to declare dredging claims forfeited for non-payment of rent.

The appeal was allowed.