WARDEN'S COURT.

Cromwell Argus, Volume V, Issue 226, 10 March 1874, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.

-•—*• Friday, March 6, 1874. (Before W. Lawrence Simpson, Esq., Warder,) APPLICATIONS. Extended Claims. —Thomas Downey and another, two acres, in No. 1 Bendigo Gully terrace: granted.—J. T. H. Brown and another, one acre at Doctor's flat: granted. (Certificate 2749, 14/11/73, cancelled.)— William Wilson, one acre at Rrown's flat: granted.—F. Chilton, ©lie acre at Smith's terrace : granted. Water Bace.~Jnm.es Thompson and three others, head race from their dam : granted.— Samuel Halcrow, three sluiceheads from the All Nations dam : ordered to get consent in writing. —John Marsh, 10 sluiceheads from Bearing Meg creek: granted, on condition that there is an am pie. supply of water therein for prior rights. Tail Bace. —Francis Chilton, 100 yards from registered claim: granted. Besidence Areas. —James Stuart, one acre below the All. Nations dam : postponed for one week.—Thomas Scott, one acre, south side of Stewart's gully, Nevis : granted. COMPLAINT. William Goldsmith and others v. G. W. Goodgerand others.—Action for £3O damages, and to.cause defendants to show their several claims to rights of water in the Bannockburn creek. Mr F. J. Wilson appeared for the complainants, and Mr J. B. Cowan for the defendants. • This" was practically a rehearing of the case under a similar title adjudicated on a fortnight ago. The complainants now profess to bring into Court all the water-rights heading out of the Bannockburn creek, for the purpose of settling their order of priorities, and getting such relief as the Warden might see fit to give. Mr Wilson, for complainants, said that Mr Cowan, who appeared for Ooodger and party, and he, had agreed that all the documents, and evidence taken and produced at the former hearing, should be nsed on this trial without wasting time by repeating it. He then produced one additional block to shew that the first original certificate in complainants' possession, and which contained a material error in a date, was so in error only, through a clerical blunder. He commented at some length on tho ambiguities contained in some of the early blocks, and stated that the complainants were now obliged to renew their action in this form, because the defendants, Goodger and party, asserted that they had obeyed the decision of the

Court in letting down only the same quantity of water which they had always done, and that if any other party diverted it on the way, it was not their business, to inquire into it. The only additional evidence was that of Mr Goldsmith, who detailed the various inspections he had made and measurements taken, and his estimate of the damage sustained by three of their party. Wm. Ellis gave corroborative evidence as to damage for himself only, as the fourth complainant working apart from the others. Mr Cowan, for defendants, argued that he waa not called upon to answer the complainants' case, because no miners' rights had been produced, and that was absolutely necessary to give a locus standi in a Warden's Court. But this was overruled by the Bench, on the complainant's solicitor producing the miners' rights. Mr Cowan then went on to argue that a show of all the rights from the original certificates, with their transfers, fa., to the present complainants, should havebeen made, as many questions might arise, such as the proper stamps on transfers, proper signatures, and so forth,—one of which being proved to bo wrong might overthrow the whole of complainants' case. lie also brought forward a host of objections to complainants' case, which are of no special interest beyond the immediate case, and which, indeed, it woidd be impossible to understand unless a verbatim report were given. One argument, however, deserves mention, as it affects every miner in the Province. Goodger and Co., it maybe remembered, bought from 11. Thomas and T. Mitchell the right to the water out of which this case first arose, —the bitter party a '.ting as attorneys for Thomas and Tippctt, who are now in England. The power of attorney so to act was afterwards found to be defective, imuroporly stamped or something or other wrong with it, anil consequently Thomas and Mitchell were thought not to have had the power to give a transfer of tho right. One proper power of attorney was, however, afterwards received by either Thomas or Mitchell, and Mr Cowan's argument is that one of the attorneys is able to sell ab'o'utely the whole riu'ht of Thomas and Tippott, they having a pro indivho right. This point Mr Cowan argued at considerable length.

After a long hearing, the greater part of the time being taken up by learnad discussions between the several lawyers and his Worship, an adjournment was granted on the application of some of. the defendants, Goodger and Co., till next Court-day; Goodger and Co., in the.meantime, agreeing to let all the water in. the. creek flow down its natural channel for the uge of complainants and Thomas and party.