CLAUGHESEY V. WICK.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 29 April 1901, Page 4

CLAUGHESEY V. WICK.

( ' o the Editor.) Sir, — Kindly give space for a few more remarks than are to be foun cl m Mr. Hawk in’s long statement in the ease just' decided in the Warden s Coni t William Claughesy v. Wick. First of all lie (Air. Hawkins) admits the thirty acr es claimed bv Boss was marked out brqa d , side on Wick’s seventy acres, which'. ■ makes it impossible to include any part- ■ of the ground marked out by the O’Briens or claimed by Claughesy as; both their applications state to the con--; lluonce of Nelson Crock with the Grey Hirer, which they got, and now the Warden wants to give Boss and Wick twenty-five chain to the west of the continence of Nelson Creek with the Grey River. This thirty acres were first claimed in the Court by David and he swore there was no portion of the ground pegged out by the O’Brien s included in his prospecting license, and he refused to have any further law over it, and would rise out of it altogether. Then John Boss tried to contradict his son by stating that this 25 acres was included in, the 80 acres. Another mistake of our Warden, where he says after Wick’s s'Urvey it was found out O’Brien held 40 acircs, that is not so. Mr Nurton surveyed the ground for O’Brien, and was paid by O’Brien. It was then Claughesy stepped in and claimed the surplus. All the 40 acres was inside of O’Brien .s p-egs sit that, O’Brien don’t dispute laying his friend Claughesy onto the surplus f.ground before a stranger would come and., take it. This is the whole facts of th e case. Wick and Boss thought they had 100 acres, Boss 30 acres, and Wick 70’ acres between the railway bridge and tl ic old bye-wash on the East bank of the Biver Grey. When the ground was so Id by them and required to be surveyed as a special it was then they found out they had only 70 or 75 acres, and notlOO acres as they thought. Ax Old Digger.

[We have boon compelled to excise a good deal from the above letter. W Idle we willing give publicly to any matter of; public importance, we decline libellous matters. —Ed. E. S.]