Moonta Mines owners defeat rival claimants in long 1860s court battle taken to privy council in South Australian first

The Elder's engine house and  hauling appliances (main image) and Hughes pump house (inset), named after Thomas Elder and Walter Watson Hughes, two directors of the Moonta Mines companies who were sued in a long 1860s South Australia court battle. Future South Australia chief justice Samuel Way (top right) first made in name in taking up the claimants' case. Attorney general James Boucaut (bottom right) introduced new clauses in the Equity Act in pursuit of the Moonta Mines directors.
Images courtesy State library of South Australia

The dispute over ownership of the South Australia’s megarich Moonta Mines went before the South Australia supreme court in 1864 and later – in a first for the province – on appeal to the privy council in London.

The long court battle followed calls for a government inquiry by the syndicate of Mills, Ryan and Thornton who accused Walter Watson Hughes of fraud and deception over the Moonta (Tipara) copper mineral claims nearly two years after the mine was discovered. The government inquiry strongly criticised how its Land Office rejected other claimants to the mine in favour of Hughes but said it wasn’t guilty of misconduct. Crown land commissioners from New South Wales and Victoria said Hughes wasn’t morally entitled to the mining leases but he and his partners couldn’t be deprived of the mine by the committee of the inquiry. South Australian government attorney general James Boucaut said the dispute was “one for the law courts”.

When the Mills, Ryan and Thornton syndicate were advised they still would win ownership of the mine if they sought legal redress, they embarked on a long and costly legal journey. To raise funds to pay for legal costs and increase their syndicate, they advertised for sympathetic businessmen to invest in the cause. Because of the alleged fraud and the odds of winning, they received many supporters.

The case against Hughes and the other directors of Moonta Mines was heard in the supreme court in 1864 before justice Benjamin Boothby. Hughes, confident of winning the case, was in Melbourne on his way to join his ship from Sydney to England to retire. But he was subpoenaed and brought back to Adelaide to be a witness.

Rising legal star Samuel Way made his name in this case, even though he lost the fight for the claimants on technical grounds during the preliminary proceedings. (Scire facias.) The frustrated claimants, advised by their lawyers, took the case to the privy council in London. In a judgement delivered in February 1866, the privy council upheld the supreme court decision that the leases couldn’t be reallocated when there was a prior problem in the Land Office.

At this time, attorney general and chief secretary Boucaut was legislating for the new Equity Act with clauses that operated against the mining interests of Hughes and his partners. Because he was also legal advisor for the claimants, Boucaut had to resign his ministry in April 1867. That year, Burra copper mine closed in May for three years and threw hundreds out of work. Judge Boothby was removed from office after several years campaigning to oust him, and there was of a crippling drought in South Australia’s north.

With Moonta Mines operating profitably and providing many jobs, its contribution to economic development was viewed as critically important. In 1867, when the new court case by the Mills syndicate claimants was being planned, there were real fears that the Moonta mine would be closed. The newspapers and public meetings by miners and tradesmen in the Copper Triangle pleaded against this. The banks were secretly informed by the government that it had no intention of closing the Moonta mine.

With legal moves started to bring the case to court under the Equity Act, Hughes and partners were so outraged they made three separate petitions: one in London to Queen Victoria and two addressed to South Australia governor Dominick Daly complaining that the new Equity Act would interfere with their rights of ownership

But, as the court case was about to begin, the claimants admitted defeat because their funding had dried up. The Mills syndicate negotiated for a settlement out of court for £8,000. Hughes and partners’ conditions were that, as proprietors of the mines, they be granted the mines freehold. This was organised by the premier H. B. T. Strangways. The technical errors of the Moonta Mines claims were retrospectively sanctioned in the Mineral Leases Validation Act 1869, favouring Hughes and his partners.