WARDEN'S COURT. CAMPTOWN.

Grey River Argus, Volume IX, Issue 725, 10 September 1870, Page 4

WARDEN'S COURT. CAMPTOWN.

Wednesday September 7. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.)

Meeghan v. WaUh and party. — This was a complaint that defendants had prevented complainant from working in his claim at No. 2 Maori Gully, No Town District, by misrepresentation and deceit, and damages to the amount of LI 8 .vere claimed for loss of time. The Warden would wish to point out to the complainant that the 13th rule of practice in the Warden's Court required " that in every complaint and summons there shall be set forth, briefly, but distinctly and explicitly, tho ground or caiißo of complaint," and his Honor Judje Wavd held in a recent decision, that in any action for deceit and misrepresentation the same must be distinctly set forth in words, and not in thp usual general way of "misrepresentation and deceit." He would give plaintiff leave to amend the summons. The summons was therefore amended. On tho former Court day the positions of tho parties were reversed — Meeghan and another mate, named Wyho, applied for a side drainage stream running into Maori Creek. Walsh and party objected, and gave Meeghan a written notice that they held a certificate registration for it, and cautioued him against interfering with their registered right. Meeghan was thrown idle, but upon the application beiug heard it was found that- Walsh and party had no right, and the water was^iven tpMeehan. The

complainant therefore sued for damages for the time he was kept idle by reason of defendants' mLrenreaenhitions. ' The Warden decided to dismiss the case without calling upon the defendants, as by clause 6, section 9, of the Regulations', he had the power to award such expenses as he might consider just and equitable, and if the complainant had applied for costs at the time the case was decided, and shown that he had sustained a loss by reason of defendants' conduct-, he would have allowed a reasonable compensation. He' could not see the propriety of encouraging endless litigation. The case would be dismissed, with costandexpen&es against complainant, L 3 10s. Several applications were made, and the Court adjourned to September 21 .