WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 651, 22 March 1870, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Tuesday, March 15. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.) Alexis Carri v. Patrick Qmnlmiu, Thomas Peek, and Thomas Plascott. — This was an action to recover damages nnd compensation for the illegal possession and conversion by defendants of plaintiff's water race, claim, hut, tools, «fee., on the Frenchman Terrace, at Moonlight, and also to recover the value of the gold taken from the claim since 3 8th October, 1869, damages were laid at L2OO. Plaintiff said he had been working in the ground in dispute for the last three-year?. On the 18th October he went to Greymouth, and on the 20th he was arrested there, and brought beftue the Magistrate charged with being of nnsound mind. He was sent to Hokitika, and detained there for nearly five months. Came back to his claim on the 7th March, and found defendants in possession of i 5. Went into his hut and found strangers there also. At this stage of the proceedings plaintiff wa3 asked to produce his miners' right. He said ho was unable to do so. Heleft it in his hufc when he went to Gi-eymoufch, but when he came back he found that his blankets, clothing, and everything he was possessed of had been taken away ; he had nothing left but what he stood in. He could not remember the date of his ■ miners' light, but he was certain he had one, it was taken out at the Twelve-mile. The Warden said that under ordinary circumstances he would dismiss the case now, but seeing that the plaintiff's memory had evidently been affecled by the affliction with which he had been visited ; he was disposed to allow him every latitude, and to render him every assistance to irate good his case. He •would, therefore, allow an adjournment until to-morrow for the production of the records from Camptown, to enable plaintiff to verify his assertion about the miners' right if he could. When the case was called, on" the lGth, the Warden's Clerk at Camptown produced the blocks for the month of February, 1569, and amongst them was found a memorandum that a minors' right had been issued to " Alex. C -," during that month. The name through inadvertance had not been written in full, but the Warden expressed an opinion that there could be no doubt that it was intended for the plaintiff. An objection waa made. on the other side that it did not amount to a positive legal proof, and the point was reserved. The . case was then proceeded with. When plaintiff went away he left a paddock 20 by 30 feet, Jartly stripped ; from a portion of the last paddock he worked before he went away he. took 23<>z of gold, and he had every reason to believe that the paddock which ho left party stripped, £in.d which defendants, must have worked, would be as good, for it was all on thelead. lie recognised some of his boxes and a barrow- wheel among the" property in pos. session of defendant as belonging to himHesawaper3on named John Quinlivan on. the claim before he went away. He paw him posting a notice to the effect that the two. Qninliyans and Peek intended to apply for his water or a portion of it,, but afterwards John Quinlivan told him that he need not attend to oppose the application, as they (the defendants) did not mean to proceed with it. The Clerk to the Warden at the Ahaura her.© produced the notice of application for the water^ which defendants made at that time. In answer to. defendants' agent, he saii he had been two years in office, but lie could not say if Cacri had a right for either the water or claim in dispute. - , ' ■ ' . Examination continued : The value of; the hut and contents was L 1 0; boxes, L 6 ; wheel, 22s 66 ; race cost LSO to oat it ; claim, Ll§o, The defendants, must have taken IJJOO worth of gold out of the paddock, which he left partly stripped. There were two axes and other tools. When he saw defendant (Plascott) on the chum, he- told him that he had bought in. Cross-examined : The paddock was 20 x 30, rather more than less. The claim was pegged out. Used to shift the pegs as the. ground was worked, so that there was always a full claim. Had a conversation with Plascott, who sa*d, he gave Lls for the share, Bemarked that he (Plascott) must have had his money out of the . claim, the first week ; but he denied it. ; flad served Plascott with a notice to produce the receipts of all the gold they, sold since they were in possession of the claim, but he had not done so. Registered the race in 1866, and never had it renewed. Patrick Quinlivan, one of the defendants, said his party were formally put in possession of the water by Mr Lowe, subject to the right, if any, of the plaintiff. The claim was abandoned, and had been for some Jime when they took possesaion of it. Never saw any pegs in the ground until he put them in himself. They got between, lldwt and 12dwt out of this paddock, which it was alleged plaintiff left stripped — it was not within eight feet of the bottom. They had worked in the ground since some time in November, and never made tucker out of it. Got altogether about 12oz out of the ground, the greater portion of which came from a different part of the chum, to that alleged to have been marked out by Carri. He j bad been living in the hut for about three weeks, but his mates had been there longer. When they took possession of it, it was without roof or door and in a filthy condition, and not worth sa, his mates put a new fly and door to it. The company never keep any gold receipts, because he did not think they ever got any; what little gold was got was generally given to the storekeeper, and credit was given them for it in his books. The boxes they found on tha claim were valueless as head boxes ; they might be used to •>■> carry away tailings. Never had anything to do with plaintiff's clothing or bedding. , Was living in his own tent the greater part of the time he was working in the ground. John Quinlivan lived with him. "Cross-examined : The paddock was not mure than 10 x 15. It wa3 wedge-shaped. We only worked about 8 x 8 of it, and then filled it in. We took ud the claim

three or four weeks after plaintiff luu gone away. Th«s evidence of this witness war, cor rol.orated by his mates Plascott and Peek and partly l»y John Quinlivan, who was originally one of the party, Intt who hat since sold I'ltc. This witness, John Quin livan, stated that he applied for the watei in the first place on account of defendants, ami although he had made every search lie was unable to find that Carri had ever renewed the registration of his water grant. The claim was not pegged out, an i.l the hut was worthless. He saw "B >b the Swede " and others removing plaint\[\'s tools and other property, but lie did n it think that any of defendant's party h yd ever appropriated any of it. The Warden, in giving judgment, sail that much as lie might sympathise with the plaintiff in the position in which he was placed, and in the painful circumstances which led to it, he whs afraid the I law was against him. His Worship then read Clause 10, Section 13, of the regulations, which bore specially on the case. When Ihe plaintiff was declared to b< insane and imprisoned he was then legallj dead. It was the duty under those cir cumstances of the Curator of Intestate Estates, or of his agents, to step in and take charge of plaintiff's property. Nr person in authority took action in the matter except Sergeant Mayherry, and he only interfered with regard to the waterright, but as plaintiff had not complied with the regulations with respect to that right for years, he had clearly lost all title to it. A3 regards the claim he did not consider defendants were in illegal possession of it, for it never could have been intended that ground would be perpetually protected during the continuance of the insanity, or until the death of the person who formerly occupied it. . The elder Quiulivan's evidence was not either satisfactory or straightforward, but the evidence given by his mates Plaiscott and Peek was, and he did not think those parties Lad taken any undue advantage of complainant, or did any thins? move than other persons under similar circumstances would have done, and he entirely cleared them of any suspicion of app:opriating a brother miner's tools or clothing as was alleged. If the residence area on which the hut . was built had been registered, then an action for damages would lie, but even as it was it had not been proved that it was of material value. The interests of complainant had been sadly neglected by those whose duty it was to see to those matters, and notwithstanding the fact that his sympathies were entirely with the complainant, he had no alternative, as the law st >oc l ) \r q ipective of the question of the validity of the miner's right, but to dismiss the case as it was brought before him. He would not saddle the complainant with any costs ; but the expenses of the witness, John Quinliven, whose evidence was important, would -have to be borne by the defendants in this suit, Mackley v. McLaughlin.— This was an application to the Court to cancel defendant's protection for a track between Noble's and Napoleon on the following grounds :— l. That a certain protection for a track, commencing afc Noble's Junction and- ending at Napoleon, had been obtained by misrepresentation. 2. That defendant did not construct the said track but only a portion of it. 3. That the said track has not at all times, nor is it now, maintained in a good state of repair. 4. That the 'said protection and grant has, and still does, interfere with existing rights. This case arose out of an action which was tried in this Court on 3rd February last, when the present defendant sued Mr Mackley for L 35 2s 6d, for tolls ou this track. Mr McLaughlin's protection and two renewals were put in on, that oc/'asion, hut no. Gazette notice was. produced; The defendant's (Mr Mackley) agent, Mr Dnny, contended at that time that under the 13th section of the Gold Fields Act of 1866, it \yas distinctly staged " that until the protection was gazetted, it would have no effect in law." Mr McLaughlin was not in a position to prove that his protection had. been gazetted, consequently it waa.argued that Mr McLaujjhlin had no power to demand tolls. The Court on that occasion thought otherwise, and gave judgment for the amount claimed. The Warden then said the judgment would not be enforced until he had tim.e to communicate with, the Superintendent. (Since then a reply favorable to Mr Mackley's case has been received from His Honor.) On the present occasion a large number of witnesses were examined on both sides to prove the condition of the track, &c, and after a long hearing, t.he. Warden said he would reserve his decision until he had an opportunity of going over the track, which he intended to do in company with the Provincial Secretary. The Court was adjourned to ths 27th inst. (For continuation of news see Fourth Page.)