WARDEN’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Dunstan Times, Issue 647, 11 September 1874, Page 2

WARDEN’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Friday, September 4. (Before Mr Warden Simpson.) Maher v. Goodgcr and others.-—The following judgment, which was reserved from the last Court, was given. The Warden said this was an action in which the complainant, who was not the holder of a miner’s right, sought a remedy through the Court, and it has been contended that in consequence he was not entitled to maintain the action. Sec. 72 of the Goldfields’ Act, 1860, enacts—“ That the jurisdiction of a Warden shall extend to all cases of any complaint of any person that any other person is indebted to him, or withholds from him any sum of money due to the complainant upon any contract relating to mining.” It appeared to him (the Warden) that this cause of action was sufficiently within the subject of mining to bring it in part under the operation of this section, but this section must bo read in conjunction with Secs. G.'l and 65. These sections appeared to establish the rule that when the “complaint,” which is the first step in the proceedings, was laid, the party so laying it must be a holder of a miner’s right, ns the words were “lawful for a Warden upon the complaint of any person

holding a miner’s right,” and by parity of reason it would be unlawful for him to proceed in the absence of a miner’s right. did not occur to him that See. 62 of the Act was passed with a view of extending the jurisdiction of the Warden; and for him to deal with all cases, and throw the door open to every and any person, whether he were a holder of a miner’s right or not. Respecting Seo. 112’ it did not mar the operation of Sees. 63 and 65, as no other section in the Act declared that a party could maintain an action in respect to a contract without being a holder of a miner’s right; but this section did appear to draw the distinction that in actions “ to restrain the occupation of, or encroachment upon any land, or to obtain any relief as tenant in common, or to recover any interest in a dam or reservoir,” not only when appearing in Court, or raising’the action, should the complainant he the’possossor of a miner’s right ; but that be should hold a mining agricultural leas-', business license or minor’s right at the time 'when his alleged title to recover first arose or accrued However hard it might seem he interpreted the Act to mean that whenever one entered the door of this Court,he must have a miner’s right. He had not arrived at this decision without some hesitation, and if the parties desired he would have no objection to state a special case for the opinion of the District Court. He could not help expressing his regret that the suggestion thrown out last Court day had not been anted upon, as upon the merits Maher was entitled to some compensation for the work and labor done.— Judgment would be for the defendants, without costs.

Dagg and others v. Goodger and others.— For the reasons above Messrs Dagg, Short, and Britton would be non-suited, as they were not the holders of miners’ rights ; but judgment for LlO would be recorded for Messrs Wood, Herbert, and Watson.