WARDENS' COURTS.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1121, 1 March 1872, Page 2

WARDENS' COURTS.

AHAURA. Friday, February^3; (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord./ Haydenv. Smith.— -This "was a'complaint that the defendant had illegally interfered with a building site at Ahaura, in possession of the complainant. The plaintiff claimed LSO damages. A preliminary objection was taken and, a nonsuit moved for by 1^ Guinness for the defendant, on the grounds i that the plaintiff's action was -wrongly brought, and that the plaintiff was never in legal possession of the section. He contended • that the proper course for the plaintiff

would have been to come to the Court and apply that the section might be declared abandoned ; but Mrs Smith having once held possession of the land legally, the Court only could cancel her right in the regular form. He referred to a recent appeal from this Court, tried before Judge Ward at Greymouth, where the Judge decided that a right under the Gold Fields Act, having once existed, could only be declared forfeited by the Court, or in other words, that there could be no abandonment unless the Warden so decided. Mr Staite, for the complainant replied, and argued that the case cited by the other side had no bearing whatever on the one now before the Court. In the case Harper and party v. O'Brien, Hartigan and party, to which Mr Guinness alluded, the Judge in the Appeal Court ruled that as the ground was originally held under a certificate of registration for a frontage tunnelling claim, that certificate should be cancelled by the Warden, on the application of persons other than the holders of it, before the ground could be considered abandoned or the right to it forfeited. Certificates of registration were not granted for business sites; they were field by business licenses, and by virtue of bona fide beneficial occupation, therefore as there was no certificate in exist*

ence the Warden could not cancel it. Tho Warden coincided with Mr Staite. The objection was overruled, and the nonsuit point disallowed. The action was properly brought, and if the plaintiff could prove legal non-occupation of the section on the part of the defendant, he would be entitled to the land under section 10, clause 6, of the Gold Fields Begulations. The case was then proceeded with, me facts were as follows .--The section in dispute stands in the business part of Ahaura, and adjoins the one on which the defendant's dwelling-house stands. The defendant holds a business license for the section, the number of which is registered on the license. The ground has been unoccupied for months, and the improvements on it consisted of a dilapidated slab hut, built before thedefendant first took possession of the section. These facts were proved by William Day, who resided on the next section to the one in dispute ; by James Hayes, who lives on tho opposite side of the street ; by Thos. Montague, a baker, who had daily opportunities of seeing the ground ; and by the complainant. Tho complainant marked out tho section nn the 20th February. Later on tho samo day the defendant directed tho pegs put in by the complainant to bo removed, and caused some building materials to be brought on to the section. Tho hut was repaired, and a pig was placed in it, and this it was contonded constituted bona fide beneficial occupatiou of the land. The defendant refusing to clear off the section the action was brought. Tho defonce was that the ground was ne\*er abandoned, and that a business license, which was produced, was held specially for it. Edward Watmore, who described himself as a " military settler," said Mrs Smith .gave him instructions about five months ago to fence in the section. He started to do so, and put in two or three panels of fencing at different times, but knocked off because a portion of William Day's out-buildings stood on the land, and interfered with the line of the fence. Mm Smith told him to stop working until Day removed his house. This was at least three months aj?o. On the day after the plaintiff marked off the section the defendant directed him (witness) to briug some timber and iron from John Hamilton (Greek's), aud repair the hut on the section ; he did so, and afterwards brought a pig of Mrs Smith's, which was at Mr Hamilton's, and placed it in the hut. Thomas Montague said he occasionally saw the defendant use the section as a drying ground for household linen. Ho could not say if Mrs Smith trafficed in sections. Ho knew that Mrs Smith purchased tho house off a Mrs Salivini which stood on the section adjoining her (Mrs Smith's) house, on the opposite side to the one in dispute, and that sho sold the house again, but he. was not aware if she bought or sold the section as well as the house. The Warden said that the complaint was proved, to the satisfaction of the Court.' The defendant held the section since November, 1871, under a business license, but this alone did not give a title to land,* if no boimfide attempt were made to beneficially occupy it. It was never intended by the Begulations that parties should bo permitted to occupy land, aud obstruct the progress of the town by erecting pigstyes and fowl-houses in tho front sections of the best business parts of it, even although business licenses were held for these sections. The defendant had to all intents and purposes ceased to legally occupy the section months ago, and even the clause in the Gold Fields Act which enabled the Court to inflict a monetary fine, instead of decreeing forfeiture, did not apply to this case. A verdict would be for the complainant, with full costs and professional costs. Later in the day Mr Guinness, on behalf of the defendant, again applied to the Court to reconsider the decision in the above case, and inflict a monetary penalty in lieu of forfeiture. The defendant was prepared to build at once on the section, and the remainder of her property was valueless without it. The complainant's solicitor did not object. The action was not brought in a vexatious spirit, but principally as an attempt to breakthrough the scandalous monopoly of sections at present prevailing in the town. Numbers of sections were held for speculative purposes, in the best sites, under the pretence of bogus occupations, such as the one attempted to be set up by the defendant, and the progress of the town was impeded by these monopolists, for if a stranger came and wanted to build, he had to go outside the business portion of the town, or pay an exhorbitant prico for sections within it. Tho Warden said that under tho circumstances he would allow the defendant to redeem tho section on payment, within 24 hours, of a fino of 14, with the costs and expenses of the action; *