WARDEN’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume II, Issue 99, 3 October 1871, Page 5

WARDEN’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Thursday, September 28. ! (Before Vincent Puke, Esq., Jutlye ami Warden.) | APPLICATION'S, i Extended Claims of one acre per man wore ; "ranted to the undermentioned applicants : | Arch. Ritchie, Bailey’s dully ; John Bailey, j Bailey’s Gully; Edward Gliilton and three I others, Pipeclay Gully. | Residence. Areas. —The following were granted : ; Joel Boulton, Thomas Horne, and James I fibsou, I quarter-acre each, at Garricktown; John Towau, ; Geo. Bedhead, aud Win. Talboys, quarter-acre each, adjoining Elizabeth Company’s machine site. ENCROACHMENT. Thomas Bane and others v. Gcurge Fauvsl i and others.—The defendants were charged with ; encroaching on a quartz claim which had been j granted to the plaintiffs. Mr Wilson was counsel for the plaintiffs. Mr Brough, for the defen- ! dants, pleaded not guilty, i A, i.>. Wilson, district surveyor, was called to prove the survey of the claims, and to certify to ! the correctness of a plan of the ground (in possession of the Court). The pegs shown him by | Bane and party were more than a foot high, but |he saw no trenches. To the best of his belief, : the pegs were between two and three feet above 1 the surface, but he did not notice them particu- [ larly. Surveyed the ground on the 2Jth ult. , Thomas Baue pegged out his claim on the 215 th August. One of the centre pegs was in a race ; j one corner was on a rock, and another on a heap |of tailings. On the 4th September, the defeni dan s asked him to point out his pegs. Defen--1 dauts’ ground was pegged out on the Saturday I previous, and two of the pegs encroached on the plaintiffs’ ground. No alteration was marie in ■ plaintiffs’ pegs until Mr Wilson surveyed the j ground, when wooden pegs were substituted for j the stone cairns first put up.—ln cross-examine- [ tion by Mr Brough, the witness said ho could i not swear the corner trenches cut by him were i of the prescribed dimensions. Wm. Smiley, one of the plaintiffs, assisted in j marking off their claim. No trenches were cut I at the lower end, because it was impracticable jto do so. The creek served as a trench at one ; corner, and there was a large rock at the other. | Thomas Scott, a shareholder in the Heart of | Oak claim, had challenged Bane about planting | his pegs in the Heart of Oak ground, but afteri wards found that he was in error. Saw trenches I on plaintiffs’ claim, but did not measure them, i Mr Brough submitted there was no proof that I Bane and party had marked off their claim in i accordance with the Regulations ; consequently i they were not in lawful occupation of the ground. I The plaintiffs themselves had almost admitted j that. i Mr Wilson maintained that the two plaintiffs | had prove I that the spirit and letter of the law | had been complied with by the erection of cairns and the cutting of trenches where prac' ioable. ! The Judge ruled that the evidence <f the two plaintiffs was sufficient to justify him in going !on with the case. It was incumbent upon the defendants to prove that the claim was not : marked off in such a maimer as to enable others to go and take possession of it. Geo. Fauvcl, one of the defendants, said ho ; marked off his claim on the 2nd September. He i would not swear that cither his pegs, cairns, or j trenches were in accordance with the RogiilaI tions. M r Brough proceeded to call witnesses for the i defence. I Alexander Macnab, one of Fauvel’s party, said i he had cut the trenches, and they wore in con- ’ fortuity with the Regulations. 1 John Jackson was in eomnany with Fauvcl j and Macnab at the time the Excelsior claim was i marked off, and assisted in putting up cairns ; and cutting trenches. This was done in accordance with the Regulations. By shifting about four feet farther down the hill, the plaintiffs could have cut a trench beside the rock referred to in their evidence. The Judge said it was quite clear that neither of Hie parties had strictly complied with the Regulations in marking out their respective I claims. On the ground of prior possession, j therefore, he would give judgment for the plain- ; tills ; each party to pay their own expenses, and i the cost of survey (amounting to L.7 75.) to be divided.