WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 655, 31 March 1870, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

1 Tuesday, March 29. (Before Mv Warden Wliitefoord.) Mackley v. M'Laughlin. — An action for the cancellation of defendant's certificate of protection for a track between Noble's and Napoleon. The evidence in this case was taken on 15th March — last Court day — when the Warden reserved his decision until he had personally inapepted the track. Judgment was given to-day. The Warden said that, since the last sitting of the Court, he had, in company with the Provincial Secretary, the Provincial and District Engineers, gone over the track, and he was glad that he had done so, owing to the conflicting evidence adduced at the hearing of the case. The first point of plaintiff's case was — that a certain protection for a track-com-mencing at Noble's Junction and ending on Napoleon Hill, had been obtained by misrepresentation ; but clearly there was no equitable misrepresentation, and he would at 6nce strike out the first ground. "With reference to the allegation, that the defendant had only constructed a portion of the track, there could not be a doubt from the evidence that Mr Mackley had incurred Borne expense in connection with, and had also made a portion of, the track, if track it could be termed. It was unnecessary to remark upon the fourth clause, viz.- That the said protection has, and • still does, interfere with existing rights, as from the evidence of the witness Kennedy, it would appear that he, as the holder of the water-race, had no claim M'Langhlin. The only question consideration was — has the track at all times been maintained in a good state of repair'} He thought not. The track is in a very bad condition, and has not been kept in that state of repair contemplated by the authorities when the grant for the track was obtained, therefore he .cancelled the protection. Mr Drury, who appeared for Mr Mackley on this and the former occasions, applied for costs, which .were allowed. The Warden said that the Government would cause the track to be put into a proper state of repair. Brennan v. Woolfe. — A complaint that had allowed his dam at Antonio's Flat to overflow, , thereby injuring complainant's ground, and carrying away his wash-dirt. Damages were laid at LlO. Mr Drury for plaintiff: Mr Davis for defendant. A considerable amount of evidence was taken as to the value of the ground and the wash-dirt which was carried away. A plan of the ground, showing the different dams and races, was produced. The dam in question was used to collect the water, and there was a race leading from it to defendant's claim, and the defence was, that some person had put sods into this race, thereby causing the water to overflow, and thus damaging plaintiffs ground. There was no proof who put the sods into the race, but the Warden held that it was evident the plaintiff would not wilfully injure his own property by doing so, consequently it was for the other side to prove they did not do so, this had not Been dove. The next question would be value of the wash-dirt carried away, and this he would assess at L 4, for which he would give a verdict, with costs of court, 15s ; witnesses, L 3, ; and professional costs, one guinea. Zacharina and party v. Hayes.— TMb was an action to dispossess defendant of a share in a tunnel under the following circumstances. A party of miners, of which plaintiffs were members, were in possession of a claim at Mosquito, into which they had driven a tunnel a distance o£BQoft. At this 'distance, they struck a run of deep ground containing a little . gold, which some of the party said was the Mosquito gutter, while others of them contended that it was not. The disagree--jnent was so serious that they resolved to Separate and divide the claim, which they did on 25th January last. One portion of the company (the present plaintiffs) agreed to take that part of the claim from this deep ground outwards to the mouth of the tunnel, including this gutter, and the other members of it (Grundy and Co.) took the part of the claim from the deep /^Kgold inwards. It was agreed between '.them that both parties should have the use of the tunnel alternately day and night. It was further agreed that which-