WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 634, 10 February 1870, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Thursday, February 3. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord,) Johnson v, Moore.— This case, which was adjourned from last Court day to enable defendant to prepare his defence, was resumed. A vast number of witnesses were called by Mr Moore, who proved that from the nature andconstruction.of Mr Johnson's track it was imposBible to proceed up the old one without crossing the new. It was pretty clearly established that Johnson's track was in a very bad condition, and that the old one would answer all purposes. It was also stated that when Mr Dutton granted Mr Johnson protection it was upon the distinct understanding that the new track did not interfere with the old one. This was distinctly denied on the other side. His Worship held that where any person had obtained protection, and had the same gazetted, it was sufficient to enable V '■' him to collect tolls. If the track were kept in bad repair it was for any person who chose to take out a summons and sue for the cancellation, on the ground that the conditions under which the protection had been obtained, had not been complied with. It would be a very dangerous precedent to establish— viz., that a person holding a protective right should be put to the proof of it in every suit, the mere production of the certificate and the Gazette notice was pnmct. facie evidence of the plaintiff's right to recover, For these reasons judgment would be given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, Ll2 12s 6d, with L 8 19s costs. The Bench paid defendant a high compliment for the able manner in which lie conducted his defence. Jas. M'LaughUn v. S, M. Maokley.— This was an action brought to recover tolls for the traffic on a tiack between Noble's and Napoleon. The plaintiff demanded L 35 2s 6d. The protection and two renewals were put in, but no Gazette. The agent for defendant took exception to the plaintiff's case, and contended that under the 13th clause of the Gold Fields Act of 1866^-wherein it distinctly stated that "after the protection had been Gazetted it would have the effect of law" _the plaintiff was not in a position t<? recover until thai had been done. It was stated that Mr Mackley had expended a good deal of money on the track, as had also Mr M'Laughlin. The Warden deferred judgment, and the Court adjourned. On resuming, defendant was aßked whether he pressed for A judgment. The reply was in the affirmative. Judgment was then given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, L 35 2s 6d, and costs. The"W)trden saidhe believed the Superintendent had empowered the late Mr Warden Dutton to grant these protections pn certain conditions, and that, therefore, he should deeintbe sanction of the Superintendent implied.' He would, however, write to his Honor upon the subject, and communicate the result to both parties. The Court adjourned to Feb. 17. The progress of both the above cases was watched with much interest, as the decisions would affect the interests of ■ nearly all the proprietors of private tracks on the gold fields. The reply to the ' Warden's letter to the Superintendent will be anxiously waited for.