AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume X, Issue 815, 8 March 1871, Page 2

AHAURA.

Thursday, March 2. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.) Henry Hankin and Co. v. William Faler and Co. — This was an action for the cancellation of an agreement whereby plaintiffs were bound to supply Faler's party with 12 inches of water daily from their head-race for the purpose of working their (defendants') machinery. The agreement was sought to be cancelled on

the ground that the shareholders in tha race most of whom becamepurchasers under distress warrants, had no hand in making it, and therefore they were not bonndMsy it ; and also on the ground that fMs*defendants did not pay their rent, L 3 per week, since the 18th January. It came out in evidence that the agreement waa made by one Albert Londahl, who had since left the race party, and William Faler, on behalf of their respective companies. The defence was that the "defendants were always ready to pay the rent, but they did not know who had authority to receive it, and nobody would give a receipt. On the 6th February the Bailiff of the Court levied on certain shares in the race, and he warned the defendants not to pay rent to any person until " further orders," and as + hey never received further orders on the matter, they religiously observed the injunction not to pay any rent; They also alleged that the complainants turned off the water and deprived them of the use of ii, therefore they could n»t claim rent for it. This turning off of the water formed the ground of a cross-action for damages against Haakin's party. After a long hearing a verdict was given for the defendants, with costs. Mr Staite appeared for the complainants, Mr Guinness for the defence. Faler and Co. v. Hankin and Co. — This was an action for compensation for loss of time by reason of defendants' action. Damages were laid at L 27. The defendants were supplying complainants with water to work the' machinery at L 3 per week, and the complainants received notice that if they did not pay L 5 per week the water would be stopped. They refused to pay the increased rent, 'and the water was stopped accordingly, causing a stoppage of the plaintiffs' machinery. In consequence of this stoppage, the water rose in Faler's claim, rendering extra woik necessary to prevent irreparable damage to the underground works. It, took nine meu three days to perform this work, and plaintiffs claimed wages for those men at LI per day. Evidence was taken of the shutting off of the supply of water, and the extra work necessarily done to avert the destructive effects of the flooding of the ground. The defence was that defendants did not consider themselves bound by the agreement which they took no part in making, and they also considered they were entitled to charge a fair rental for the use of the water, and that L 5 per week was not excessive as other parties were willing to pay it. The Warden in giving judgment said, the complainants were entitled to a vprdict, but not for damages to the amonnt claimed. The proper course for complainants to take when the extra rent was demanded of them was to pay it under protest, and then come to the Court for redress. The complainants alleged that damage amonnting to L 27 had been done in their claim in a fewdays by reason of complainants stopping the water, but if the complainants had paid the extra L 2 that damage would not have taken place, &nd in the meantime complainants could get redress elsewhere. The verdict would be for L 2 with costs. Mr Guinness for complainants, Mr Staite for the defence. . John Bourke v. Frank Hanlon and David Ryan. — This was a claim of Ll3O for work and labor done a3 a surveyor and miner for defendants at the Teviot Creek. The defendants were holders of an extended claim at the Teviot, and the complainant was working for or with them. There was some doubt as to whether the complainant would not claim to be a partner if the ground had turned out well, and the Warden, after characterising the case as a jumped up one, dismissed it with costs and professional costs against the plaintiff. Mr Guinness for complainant; Mr Staite for the defendants. Paula Francisco v. Petri Benetti. — This was a dispute about the boundaries of two claims at Half-Ounce. The case had been adjourned for the production of the Government Surveyor's plan of the ground. This was put in the boundaries settled, each party to pay his own share of the costs. There were several applications; disposed of, and the Court adjourned to March 16th. ■ >