WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1132, 14 March 1872, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

■.; „ .. ■ . *^_ . .. , ..... •:■ Thursday; March 7. ; (Before Mr Warden WhitefQQrd.) Thomas Thomas v. Patrick Barry and Thomas Maxwell— This was a complaint that the defendants had unlawfully interfered with the complainant's : head-race at Garden Gully, Moonlight, and deprived him cf his supply of water. The plaintiff '. claimed L4O as damages. The parties were partners in the head-race ilafid other workings, and in consequence of a dis? agreement they came to Court. The case assumed the nature of a prayed on the part of the complainant for an injunction to restrain the defendants from pursuing the. present system of working the ground ancV for a division of.the .water. The plaintiff claimod to be the owner of. the greater portion of the ■partnership property, but this was denied by. the respondents. The race had been made conjointly, and they alleged that although the plaintiff was origiually in possession, he had ceded an equal right with himself

to each of the defendants when they joined him. The hearing of the evidence on both sides occupied the Court for some hours. One of the defendants (Mr Barry), conducted the defence in an able manner The Warden in giving judgment said the case was one among many brought on through the extreme fondness for litiga tion of the plaintiff. There was no doubt that as the plaintiff assisted to cut the race be would be entitled to bis separate share of the water, but the evidence adduced did not justify the Court in interfering. Judgment would be for the defendants with costs. Mr Staite for the plaintiff. Antonio Jaccerino and party v. Alfred Bergerson and party.— An action for LIOO as damages for obstructing the Creek at Half-Ounce by depositing tailings therein. The plaintiffs are the holders of Mabille's leasehold on the Half-Ounce lead, and the defendants are working higher up tbo lead. The washing (place of the defendants is situated near tbe plaintiff's working shaft, and they alleged that they are in danger of being swamped out by reason of the defendants blocking the creek with tailings and turning the creek water into the plaintiffs workings. Mr Staite, for the complainants, asked leave to amend the complaint by withdrawing the demand for damages in prospective. The defence was -that the defendants were not obstructing the creek as alleged, and that if they were not intentionally endangering the plaintiff's workings. Mr BorgerBon, who appeared for his party, contended that tbey were exercising the reral right to deposit therein tailings the bed of the creek as the natural tail-race. The tailings accumulated now inconsequence of the scarcity of water in the creek owing to the dry weather. When it rained and the creek ran as usual the tailings would pass away without injuring any one. The Warden reserved his decision until he visited the scene in dispute. An interim order was made to restrain the defendants from.depositing any more tailings in the creek until an arrangement was made. Costs to abide the result of the action.