BLACK'S

Dunstan Times, Issue 251, 15 February 1867, Page 2

BLACK'S

(FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)

A case of the highest moment to the mining community was heard in the Warden's Court here, bcfoieW. L. Simpson; Esq., Warden, on Friday, the Sth insf. The Perseverance Wa\r Race Company and the Drybread Water Ka e Company were the litigants. It appeared in evidence that in 1804 the Drybread Race Company had three heads of water granted to it. and on the Sth of February, 1860, the Perseverance Company had six heads of water granted. On the 22nd of March, 1800, the latter Company applied for eleven extra heads', giving fourteen days' notice of application. Four days afterwards the Drybread Company applied for ten extra heads, and gave only seven days' notice. Mr, Warden Hickson granted the extra heads to the seven days' notice, although the Goldfields Act distinctly states that fourteen days' notice must be given. Mr. Hickson ap. peared in Court to give evidence. He said that he had not considered it necessary to adhere to any rules when additional water was applied for, and that in such cases the discretion of the Warden was to be the arbiter. Mr. Si upson non-.ui ed the plaintiffs (the Perseverr.nce Comp tny), holding that, as Mr. Hickson thought he had discretionary power, his act must be re. ognised. Mr. Chappie, of Alexandra, most ab y advoca'ed th; case for the plaintiffs, and Mr. FaL'er, of Black's, in conjunction with M\ Greenbank, fought well for the defendants. The plaintiffs intend to appeal against the non-sui*-, and the question as to whether a Warden has L he power of making a grant of water at an hour's notice, instead of at tlie time stated in t to Goldfields' Act, will, no doubt, be substanially settled. At the same sitting of the Court a person named Lyons sued Messrs. Glassford Brothers, forL.O, balance of wages. It was stated by Mr. Henry Glassford that the money was owing to him on account of fowls having been worried »y plaintiff's dog. A verdict was given for the •imount claimed, but the Magistrate said that :he defendant could sue for the value of the fowls, and a summons was at or.ee served upon the plaintiff. Several other cases were heard and disposed of.