WARDEN’S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume IV, Issue 190, 1 July 1873, Page 6

WARDEN’S COURT.

Thursday, June 2G. <(Before W. Lawrence Simpson, Esq., Warden.) APPLICATIONS. Extended Claims. —G. Webb and another, Nevis; granted.—Andrew Wood and another, Adams’s Gully: objections by Nelson and party, nnd fresh application directed to be made.—W. Phillipi, three acres at Prospect Flat : objected to by John Hurley, and refused, the ground not having been declared open for extended areas. Protection. —Certificates were granted to the followingD. MacKellar and five others, quartz •claim at head of Adams’s Gully, sixty days ; J. L. Edwards and five others, quartz claim, Carrick, sixty days ; Henry Longfort, alluvial claim, Nevis, ninety days ; F. Shambrook and two others, Pipeclay, thirty days ; Peter Hansen and another, Kawarau Gorge, sixty days. Tail Race..— W. Dunlop and another, Gravelly 'Gully : granted. Water Paces. —F. Welling, one head from Raupo Gully : granted.—William Millar and ■another, and S. S. Hanger, suspension of section 11, reg. 12 : both granted. Lam. —Certificate granted to W. Dunlop and another, Gravelly Gully. VALE OF AVOCA CLAIM. Edward Rigg and two others sued Martin Erich and five others for trespass on ground known as the Vale of Avoca claim, of which complainants alleged they took lawful possession on the 9th June. Defendants (for whom Mr Wilson appeared) claimed having marked off the same ground on the 7th. Evidence was heard on both sides, and it was proved that neither party had marked off the ground in conformity with the Regulations, therefore neither was in proper possession of the claim. The complaint was dismissed, and the rival claimants (Rigg and Brich) immediately left the Court and started off to mark out the disputed ground afresh. ANOTHER CLAIM DISPOTE. Andrew Wood v. F. Frenneson.- -Complaint for non-compliance with the Regulations. The Warden gave judgment as follows ‘ ‘ The claim, in the opinion of the Court, has not been properly represented ; and being impressed with the fact that defendants have attempted to hide the quantity of ground held by them as a company, in terms of second conclusion in the complaint, the Court cancels their certificate over that poi’tidii of the claim (being two acres) which is known as the lower end of said claim, and declares said two acres open for application. Defendants to pay costs, and IGs. witnesses’ expenses.”