WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XI, Issue 904, 21 June 1871, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Thursday, Juke 15. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.) Alfred Morgan v. James Graham. — A complaint that the defendant was illegally in possession of section No. 4 in the new township at Half-Ounce. The complainant said he marked out the section in dispute on 22nd April, and after getting it protected he gave it to defendant on condition that he commenced to build on it at once. The defendant did not do this, and on the 29th of May the complainant re* occupied the ground, and the defendant disputed possession with him and ordered the men away whom plaintiff put on to clear the bush from it. Witnesses were called to prove that the defendant did not improve the section in any way beyond erecting a fly on if. The defence was that defendant had a man living on the ground under the fly all the time that he was engaged in clearing it ; also that he gave a sawyer named Francis Allard an order for 5000 feet sawn timber, to be used in the erection of buildings on the section. The evidence was taken at great length in this case, and the Warden in giving judgment said that this was not the first case of the kind which came before him in which parties held building sites in new townships for merely speculative purposes. Complaints were continually being made to him by parties requiring sites for legitimate occupation that they were unable to get them, but that there were plenty to be had on payment of L2or L 3. His Worship then read clause 6, section 20 of the Regulations, which distinctly directs that—" to constitute sufficient occupation to hold a business site, it shall be necessary either that the holder of a business license shall be actually residing thereon, or that such considerable business or operations be carried on upon the site, or in connection therewith, as shall amount to a hona fide occupation." He was of opinion that the defendant did not occupy the section in accordance with the Regulations, and he was not disposed to attach any importance to the alleged contract with Allard. He wished the deciaion he would give in this case to act as a caution to persons who held possession of business sites under what might almost be called a fraudulent pretence, as a warning that this shepherding of sections would not for the future be countenanced, for the settlement and progress of new townships were re- ! tarded by such practises, The verdict of the Court would be, that defendant should give complainant possession of the section and pay the costs of the Court, with L 2 expenses of witnesses and professional costs. Mr Staite for complainant, The defendant in person. Luken v. Fitzgerald. — An action for encroachment at Mosquito, Napoleon, Judgment for complainant with costs. Owen Owens r, Win. M'Oall and Marcy Medard. — A clsiini for wages for working for defendants from 4th April to 3rd June, at Antonio's Flat, Little Grey. This case was arranged lotwoen the parties. H. Brown v. R. Nidil. — A claim for dividends at H iif Ounce. No appearance of either party. Lailiiiir and pmtv i-xl Oosgrave and party applied for amalgamation, at HalfOnnce. The application was opposed by Thomas Fagan and party, because there was surplus or spare ground between the two claims which it was proposed to amalgamate. The objector said he measured off one of the claims aid found 2Cft spare, and on taping off the other he found 16ft, making in all 42ft. He claimed this ground for his party. The applicants put in a plan of the grourd in dispute, drawn from surveys made by Mr Surveyor Mabille. The objectors disputed the accuracy o f this plan, and alleged that although the surplus ground was shown on it, actual measurement would prove that there was surplvs ground between the claims. The Wardm said the case would have to be adjouned until the Government Surveyor had made a plan of the ground. He woud be willing to take Mr Mabille's plan in evidpupe if both parties agreed to be guided by it ; but when the correctress of any private surveyor's plan or sirvey was disputed by either party to thesuit, the Court had no alternative but to order a survey to be made by the Government Surveyor. Costs to abide the resuli of the action. Tho Court adjourned to the 29th June.