WARDEN’S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume I, Issue 6, 15 December 1869, Page 5

WARDEN’S COURT.

CROMWELL. (Before Vincent Pvkh, Esq., Warden.) Gibson v. Colclough and Lyons.—This case had been heard at the last sitting of the Court. The plaintiff prayed he might be entitled to one-sixth I share in' defendants’ reef. The defendant Colclough pleaded (Ist) that he had not entered into partnership with the plaintiff, and (2nd) that he had discovered the reef independent of any agreement The other defendant, however, denied that the agreement entered into at the £ . Cardrona extended beyond giving plaintiff a right to anv machinery site discovered. fgnbsojjU-Cntly the right of plaintiff to a one-fifth interest in the two sixth shares held by Lyons was admitted j by the defendant Colclough, and from the evi- ! donee given, it appeared that plaintiff’s right to that extent had been acknowledged by Lyons. Judgment was given for defendants, with costs of Court. Mr Brough applied for a re-hearing on the grounds that fresh evidence had been discovered, L ‘and that plaintiff had been taken by surprise.— Granted, the application for assessors to be made on the 22nd inst., aud case to be heard on the I Cth January. I Boud and Austin r. Same. —Mr Manders urged ’ that these cases should be heard, as plaintiffs cases were strengthened by several witnesses he . Dad to produce from the Cardrona and elsewhere. J ’I he Warden, after some argument, refused to ,j bear the matter piece-meal, and set down the lises for hearing-on the sth January. The laintiffs alleged, without counsel, that they had umerous witnesses from Cardrona and the reefs j resent. ' The other business transacted consisie I of an j ■ [application by Bushell and party and Passmore | ■ (a id party for water at Smith’s Gully. The ap- { I p?ieation was opposed by a party of Chinese, for I i ymom Mr Manders and Mr Badger appeared. The ! rJg oplicants desired to tap the source of supply to Khc gully uvnel, and by being allowed to do so, eß nit more than half a head would How down the V gdlv. The Court refused both applications, and warned applicants that if they interfered I with the Chinamen’s' water they would be fined I hiaviiy. j The other business transacted was of an unimportant nature. t' ■ I