DISTRICT COURT, CLYDE.

Dunstan Times, Issue 264, 17 May 1867, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT, CLYDE.

RESIDENT MAGI TR \TE'S COURT Extended Jurisdiction. Before His Honor Judge Grey. Monday 13th Ma}'. Scully v Devan-«-Claim for .£6l 7s Cd goHUs delivered. Judgment for 555 Is 7d with costs. b Same v Heenan and another Claim foi*£sl 6d -Id—Judgment f. r amount claimed, and costs. t ; , Same v Jno Heenan Claim for £332ssd. Judgment for £2S 17s6d and twenty one shillings, costs. Same v M'Devmi— Claim for .£'ll 6**

7d Judgment for £l2 ICs 7d, and twenty one slulKngiitob'to. Crawford and another, v Coate3.-=-Claiin for £2l ICs Od—No appearance. Cope V for i' 4-1 7s Od This was a cluim made for electioneering expences incurred by plaintiff at the request ©f -defendant.—Plaintiff conducted his own case, Mr W. L. Bailey appeared for defence, who pleaded non liability, and that the amount charged was excessive.—The items were gone into seriatim,* and--a verdictfor £33 Is Od, was given and £2 8s Od costs. Thomson v Insley and another—Claim for £3O 183 4d—No appearance. M'Comhv Morrison—Ckim for £S315a 7d—No appearance. Kelsall v Eew and others .-Claim for £loo. This demand arose out of a mining dispute, but plaintiff had to submit to a nonsuit on account of some documentnecessary to prove his cas"e being locked up by Messrs Brown and Hughes in the Mining Registrars Office at Clyde— Plain tiff, witnesses, and his agent, having to come all the way from the Kawarau Gorge on a fruitless errand, besides those interested in the defence.

COURT OF APPEAL.

Before Ilia Honor Judge Grey. Tuesday, I4th May. Read and others, Appellants—Holmes and others, Respondents.—Mr Chappie for Appellants, Mr\V, L. Bailoyfor Respondents.— Appellants claim in the Warden's Court, was, that " defendant be adjudged to have forfeited all superior right to draw any more than thro; heads of water, by reason of their failure to draw it from the time the Complainants applied for, and reconstructed their race up to the be. ginning of 1813, under Section 3of Reg. 4 o the Gold-fields' Rules, and that the Court cause a guage in terms of the rules in force, prior to tin 21st Oct. 1884, to be placed in the defendants Race, so aa to guage their quantity according to those rules. Mr« Warden Simpson, who hoard the case at Black's gave his decision to the following effect,—On the 1. 2. S. aiuMtti. heads of complaint, found for the defendant;-, the Plaintiffs having failed to prove that defendants were drawing from the Creek only, three heads of water at tho time plaintiffs made application in December 1864. On the fifth heid of complaint, found that j defendants are entitled to be guaged under the I guage that came in force on 21st. October 13C4 on tho following ground*, "Ist that plaintiff | became applicants for a Water Race in Beccmj ber 1864, and that therefore as between them an 1 the dt-fandant, tho rules then in force mutt be applied, fov so muc i as regaids the Plaint ffi j any previous rules had'fcean repealed, and thi B j conclusion will be come to or. reading Sec. 23 of j Reg. 4 of the rales passed 21st. Oct. 1864."5eeI end, that the Rules sought to be applied by ; plaintiffs, to defe.nda?ils right, could only bo put in force as between parties who acquired rights under them, avid this was the evident ii • tention cf the Legislature, eo as to enable those having rights complaining of an evil to have some remedy.—"That it is a fair and equital le ! view, and one which practical experience has I confirmed as good, particularly as under guage, sought to be applied by plaintiffs ; there is no proper definition of a guage, and that it is porsiblo under it to take an indefinite supply cf I water. Fourth, that in point of fact, the Tiules : in force up to 21st October, 1364 were by those ; rules absolutely recalled, and parties were mede ! amenable to the penalties of rales of 21st Oeth. | 18G4, but in Law perhaps that would not be I the ea3e, but the intention of tho Le lislaturc ! can be thus arrived at, and no injustice is dono to parties acquiring rights under rules passed ! 21st October 1864.—The ground of arpeal ! against this decision was "That tin djfsiv.Un*', ] Holmes obtained their grant or cevtifieni-e to dii vert and use water from Thomson's Creek under | the rules and regulations of tho Ota-o Gold i Fields in force prior to 21st October 18(54, con- ! seouontly they should be guaged under rules ] and regulations in force at the "time thoy lir>t j became registered for said riaht of waW. Duo i servi ;a of notices, and deposit with Clerk of ! Court waa proved. I Mr Chappel submitted that respondents held I a water-right dated prior to 21st October, 1864 —consequently they held thcit- right under tho ' old rules on 21st October, 1564 ; other rules i came into force which increased what is known I as a imd-of water—water is now measured by | now rales, but where parties hold water-rights ; under old rules,'tho ad-measurement is porporI tioned. Respondents, about twelve months j after new rules came into force, enlarged their | race, and drew wa'-er according to new rules—thus depriving appellantss of th i • water-supply. Mr Chappie, also submitted, that by the new regulations or rales, provision was made against interference with existing rights. Mr Bailey allowed that respondents did oV ain a certain water-right under the rejm.la'-io-'s of 1863 ; those regulations wore however re - -i-ed. and the old rules repealed by the new—he urged that tho old rules were not a guage at all—the new rules did define a guage, and respondents had held their water-right without any dispute for the last four years. Mr Chappel agreed that .such a statement might be hornet, nevertheless, respondents had never applied to the Warden to bu nut under the new water cringe. His Honor reserved his jndsnraent, remarking that his decision appeared likely to atfect a larce number of interests, and was more than of ordinary importance ; ha also romarked upon tho absurd system of measuring water, and though* that it would have been better to have said so many cubic feet per second, than so much water running through a certain aperture— a gallon of water was so many inche.«, and n't a defined stream running out of a In 1c for a given length of time. Any wodo of mo'snrement might be recommended but not deiined by legislative enactment. Fratherstone and Party, Appelants—Holmes and Party, Respondents.—This case was dismissed—the deposit money rot having beon paid to the Clerk of the Court before the 22nd April —the appeal being made on the 25th March I previous, Mr Chappie, who appeared for Appelants, proved that the money was lodced with Mr Warden Simpson at tho time of making tho appeal; but it appeared that it had got into the hands of the Clerk at St Batbans, instead cf th» Clerk to the District Caurt, at Clyde. Mr Bailey, who appeared for respondents, insisted that the 81st Section of the Goldfields Act had not been complied with, and hia Honor had no other alternative but to dismiss the ca.se, although he did so reluctantly*