TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 223, 17 February 1874, Page 5

TELEGRAPHIC NEWS.

The following was published as an “extra” by us last Friday DUNEDIN, Friday, 12.23 p.m. The steamer Mongol arrived this morning, after a passage of forty-nine and a half days from Plymouth,—the quickest on record. She has been placed in quarantine. During the voyage, there were sixtv-seven cases of measles, twenty-one of scarlet fever, and eight .of bronchitis, resulting in sixteen deaths. . There are still four cases ot illness' on hoard-

j I , t Friday, February 13. ,« 1 • (Before , IK. Lawrence, Simpson, Esq., Warden, j APPLICATIONS. Extended Claims. —.Samuel Hoskruge ami another, two acres in Pipeclay gully : granted. Abraham Ghadw ck and another, two acres Doctor’s flat: granted.—Thomas Bazlatl and another, one acre on same : granted, —-Edward Skinner, one acre in Smith’s gully : granted - J. Malcolm and another, two acres in Drummond’s gully : granted.-—Jacob Myers and another, two acres in Snowy gully : granted. ; Protection. —R. E. Daggand another applied j for 90 days’ protection for claim in Adams’s gully ; cause assigned—no water : granted.— John Barr and two others, 60 days’ for claim in Smith's gully ; the same cause assigned : granted. —John Saltonn and five others, 60 days' for claim

at head of Pipeclay gully, to test the reef: refused. Samuel Latimer, 90 days’ : granted. —William Anderson, 90 days’, claim in Adams's gully : granted.—Adam Spence, 90 days’, claim at Nevis : granted. Water Races. —John Werner applied for two sluib'eheads from East branch of Kirtleburn. Objections were made by Kscott and party, —J. Oliver and five others applied for three sluiceheads from Moonlight creek : granted. Darn. —John Barr and two others applied for dam 100 yards North Royal Standard battery : granted, Tunnel. —Samuel Roskruge and another were granted permission to drive a 300fb. tunnel from Pipeclay gully. . , .;. Tail Races —Jacob Myers and another were granted a tail-race quarter of a mile long in Snowy gully.—John Malcolm and another were granted one 400 yards from claim in Drummond’s gully, Nevis. COMPLAINT. The case of William Goldsmith and party v. Goodger and party was an action for diverting water from Bannockburn Creek, to which the plaintiffs claimed a superior right,—with a claim for damages. Mr Wilson appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Cowan for defendants. James Marshall and William Goldsmith were examined for plaintiffs, and proved a right to ruh three heads of water, and put in rheif certificates and renewals. They alleged that the defendants, who headed out above them, diverted all the water, except sufficient to supply Thomas and -party,—whose rights were -before cither of the litigants - and that consequently they (the I plaintiffs) were deprived of their proper supply. Mi* Cowan applied for a nonsuit on the following grounds :—l. That complainant sued fo.i himself and party, whilst he should have disclosed all the names of the party. 2. That by virtue of a certificate he produced from the . Registrar of the Supreme Court, the property of the defendants had been vested, before the action Avis brought, in the Bannockburn Water I Race.dlo., Limited, and therefore the present*. | named defendants were not, liable. .3 S That, the j langHage of the first original document pro luced j was'against' the complainants’ contention.. I Mr Wilson.inreply held that the-first ground | could only be taken as a preliminary objection. I The second ground was not tenable, inasmuch as

j incorporation could not transfer property, a j transfer duly signed and registered with the j Mining Registrar being still necessary ; and the i complainants had searched and found that the | rights were still vested in the defendants named. His Worship held that there was force in the I first objection, and allowed an amendment of [ the complaint; the second he held as no ground of nonsuit, agreeing that no property had passed j by the act of incorporation ; the third he overj ruled on its being stated. ! Mr Cowan, after addressing the Hench at some lengthy .palled Messrs Shamhroak, M ‘Cowan,. I Berry, an I O’Neill. It appeared from these | witnesses that the defendants claimed a superior j right by priority of occupation, and after they 1 had purchased the right under which they I claimed I 'priority, they had obtained leave to changedheir head-race. It mav here he explained that Goldsmith and party’s'certificate, as shewn by the renewals, is

dated 12th July, 18(14; whilst Ooodgev and party’s,,certificate, as shewn by renewals, is I dated 13th July, 1864 —a memorandum on the {block of the certificate book stating Goodger’s I grant tohavc been made on the 12th July. 1864. j Goldsmith and party’s original certificate is not | entered at all in the Extended Registration book I of the proceedings of the Court ; whilst, to add I to the confusion, Goodg-n* and party’s original certificate is entered as if granted on the 13 hj July, 1834. Another element of confusion was I introduced by the fact that the alteration of the I bead-r.ve was applied for and granted to Goodger and party’on the 20lh of May, 1873. when no transfer from Thomas and Co. to them took place till 6th August, 1873. I His Worship reserved judgment, there being I several points requiting attention, and which I doubtless will he fully observed an i explained n j the judgment. The foregoing is little more j than an outline of a hearing which took nearly | live hours.