The fractions of dues would indicate the lord referred to would have held that share of the mineral rights, in the first case Lord Falmouth would have held 2/3 and other parties the remainder. In this case the other Lords would probably have made a seperate lease document reserving the remaining 1/3 of the dues. Alasdair Neill.
John C Symons <[log in to unmask]> wrote:I would appreciate any help that members of this list can give
regarding the definition of dues as included in mining leases. In a
recent examination of a number of indentures, I have come across (which
are to me) instances of confusing definitions of dues to be paid to the
owner of the mineral rights. Let me quote the first example dated 31
Jan 1786:

... deliver unto the said Viscount Falmouth on the grass or at the Sale
two parts in three parts of one fourteen part share of all such Copper
and Copper ore and other Minerals and Metals (Except Tin) as shall be
found in the said premises ... and two parts in three parts of one
fortieth part of the money arising from the sale of black Tin ...

The second indenture, dated 22 Oct 1819, I found even more confusing.
On the title of the indenture the dues were specified as:

Dish 1/24th till costs paid then 1/18th

This was straightforward, until in the text the dues were specified as
follows:

... delivering to William Robinson Hill ... until such time as the said
John Williams ... shall ... be reimbursed and repaid the expence to
setting to work the said Mine one third part of one twenty fourth part
share or dole and from and after such repayments of the expence Then
paying during the residue of the Term one third part of one eighteenth
part or share of All tin and tin stuff Copper and copper ore Lead and
Lead Ore and all other ores Metals and Minerals as shall be found or
raised ...

I have edited out all the repetitive legal phraseology to get at the
essentials.

There is no difficulty with the fractional dues as stated in the
indentures, my problem arises with the additional qualification, namely
in the first the use of the phrase ' two parts in three parts', and in
the second 'one third part'. Can anyone please explain this (what is to
me) apparent anomaly.

One other point if I may. The second indenture is entitled 'Counterpart
Sett of Ground in the Parish of Kea'. This I understand makes it a
copy. Only John Williams' signature and seal, duly witnessed appears at
the foot of the document. Is one signature on a counterpart sufficient,
or is it reasonable to assume this indenture is not legal by reason of
the lack of the signature and seal of William Robinson Hill, duly
witnessed?

Any help will be greatly appreciated. I hope I have explained myself
clearly.

Best wishes

John


---------------------------------
  Yahoo! Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download Messenger Now