Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

IMPORTANT TO DREDGING COMPANIES.

At ihe Esefton Warden’s Court on Saturday before E. S. Hawkin’?, Esq, Warden, the Pactolus Gold Dredging Co. commenced an action against Andersoe a claim for .£SOO damages for non-comple-sion of contract to erect dredging ma ohinery within specified time. Messrs Free and Hannan appeared for the plaintiff Conmany and Messrs Harpur and Wilding (of Christchurch) for defendant. At the outset (says the Herald) Mr Harpur raised the question of the jurisdiction of the Warden’s Court, goinS at length into the interpretation of section 254° and 294 of the Mining Act. Mr Wilding continued the argument, holding that the matter should bo taken directly to the Supreme Court. Mr Hannan, for plaintiff, quoted Dovelin’s case, heard in Auckland, in which it was held that the Warden’s Court was the proper Court in which to bring proceedings arising out of mining operations. The question of jurisdiction was held over at the request of Mr Harpur. Mr Free opened the case for the plaintiff Company setting forth the general grounds of the suit. The first witness called was Percy Niohol Kingswell, manager of plaintiff Company, who produced an agreement entered into between the Pactolus Gold Dredging Company, Limited, and John Anderson (iron founder) for the supply and erection of machinery.

Lengthy legal argument as to whether the agreement should be allowed to bo put in as evidence without proof by the attesting witness to the signature of same, resulted in the Warden holding that the agreement was not a deed that required to be attested.

Joseph Hambleton, manager of Di - Satch Foundry Company, Greymouth, ames Oowm, dredgemaster of the Pactolus Gold Dredging Company, Limited ; William Henry Cucten, of Gotten Bros, engineers, Dunedin, and William Faithful representative on the West Coast of Messrs Cutten Bros, gave evidence for plaintiff. The Court adjourned till to-day at 10 o’clock, when the case for the defence will be beard.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GEST19011028.2.31

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 28 October 1901, Page 4

Word count
Tapeke kupu
317

IMPORTANT TO DREDGING COMPANIES. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 28 October 1901, Page 4

IMPORTANT TO DREDGING COMPANIES. Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 28 October 1901, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert