DISTRICT COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1160, 17 April 1872, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, April 16... . ■ i (Before His Honor Judge Harvey.) ; DRTJRY V. COONEY AND PARTY. The hearing of this case. was continued the same counsel appearing as on the last occasion. The first witness called .was y • ■ • • Warden Whitefoord, who stated that to the best of his recollection, when the agreement was made between the plaintiff and the defendants the plaintiff had permission to practise in the Warden's Court at the Ah aura. He remembered the case Anderson arid party v. Cooney and party, which was heard at the Ahaura. A portion of the claim in dispute was then known as "Rory, of the Hills,", but is since known as No. 1 on Kelly's line .of reef. • The .prospecting claim {was to the south of the claim in dispute Witness had been on ,the claim since the original decision was given, and found that the same ground as was included in the decision aa "Rory of the Hill," was now the subject of this action. It was admitted by _ Kennedy that a full share was held in the claim extended from 180 ft to 300 ft along the line of the reef ; but that a part -of the ground held, under the certificate was given to Westfield and party under a decision of the Court at Ahaura. The alleged agreement at the Ahaura was then entered into, and the action commenced. 1 was on the .ground about one month after the certificate was granted, and saw Cooney there. I was at Vthe reefs in December last, and wentoveffthe ground again. The plaintiff and some of the men came to me on the same night as the decision was given to get a certificate for the adjoining ground. As far as I can remember I rode up in the morning and told the sergeant of police, who was the only clerk I had, that he could issue a certificate to" these men. I remember being in the Warden's Court at Reef ton when this case was heard, and hearing Cooney giving evidence. Cooney was recognised as the leading man in the party, and applied for the certi6cate at Cobden. By Mr Pitt : It afterwards appeared to me in Court that Cooney had stolen a march upon the real prospectors, who were Westfield and party. Cooney's certificate was cancelled and granted to Westfield and party. . Afterwards a case of encroachment was heard between the parties ; and" I remember the plaintiff conducting a case in the Warden's Court for the present defendants. That case went against them. Drury never asked to have his name inserted in the new certificate for the seven men's ground. 1 knew he claimed an interest in the claim from what he told me, and from what I saw in the books of Court. Re-examined : I don't remember that the -prospecting claim was., granted -to Westfield before it was given to Cooney, but it may have been granted at the Ahaura before Cooney came to Cobden. I remember Drury showing me the agreement between him and the defenants for a. one-eighth share in the claim, some days after the case was heard. Robert Kennedy was called for the plaintiff, and said : . I remember seeing the agreement produced as between Drury and the defendants. The party consisted of James ' Armstrong, : " James Mooney, Frank Cooney, . Rody Kerrigan, James Kelly, and myself. We were then working as two parties, with two distinst claims, holding them under one certificate as a prospecting claim, and took up some other ground ahead' of us, which we held, The additional .ground- we Jtook up was north of our original claims. We held 600 ft along the 1 line of reef which was known as "Rory of the. Hills." Westfield and party held the ; claim southa of us. The party to the north of us claimed from us 120 ft, leaving us. the balance. The line of reef in which the claim "Rory of the Hills" wap, is now known as Kelly's line of reef. We never gave Drury notice to put on a wages-man to represent his share. The prospecting claim was known as Westfield arid parly;" but I don't know what -it is known aVtiow. The party north of us is now known as the Westland Company. I am not a shareholder In No. 1 north now; T sold out about 12 months ago forLlßo. {L cannot remember having ever seen a letter from Drury requiring the original certificate to tbe .gent down to. have the transfer of ;his share endorsed upon it. IfknowjHayderi brought, a letter from Druiry up: to Cooney, which he read and tore up. : I don't remember whether -Cooney ever told his mates what the contents of the •letter were. Hayden gave it to me in the claim, and to the best of my belief I did ribi''"open"itJ'"H^V.! ? passH'''Jt~ov6r''ibd Cooney, who opened it. 1 saw the Grey River^ Argtjs of July It, 1871, contain-; ing a notice from Drury to the company as legal manager. „ ; . , . . . * By Mr Pitt : , Drury conducted the case for us at the Ahaura, ; which we lost. Drury did not then apply to be put on the certificate. It, was ; some months . afterwardsthat I heard from Mr. Warden Whitefcord that Drury claimed a .share in the claim.. : Nothing -was said at the Ahaura between us as to the : plaintiff keeping books, forming a ■ company, or writing letters for us. ■■ -' x ~- ■ -< Examination of the plaintiff Edward Alfred Drury continued : When I entered into the agreement with the defendants I knew what certificates they held. I read the agreement over to the party. Byrne read it aloud, and also Kennedy. '•'.The five shillings I handed to either Armstrong ; or Kennedy was paid as part of the consideration, and Lot for drinks. There were ho drinks served for three-quarters

of an hour after that. < They told] me that 'they had pegged. : out C five -men's- v ground and three men's ground and.the prospecting certificate covered' 'both, and if they lost the case they would be certain to hold the surplus ground. Thomas Cooney wasjhen actiug Jts, the i Jgadjng,. man among" tKem"."* They gave me" a" written /authority; to> appear for them at the Warden's 1 CourtJ Ahaura. I had a printed jorm o| K authprity,^which ? .wa3.-. signed by ; Cbohey for' the parjiy^ which I produced' "to' 1 the Warden^ '^l' did u;> ; keep them as a rule ;,they were, generally 'destroyed after they had served Jtfiei": purpose. After the decision of the Court at Ahaura Cooney said he would appeal^ and they wanted me to bear the expense of the appeal," but I ' was not so foolisht After the case they instructed me to apply for the surplus ground, which ik now a portion of the claim. lapplied "for" the certificate 'the" "same nighjt in the Court, and s 'through my instrumentality the certificate was obtained!, • Next morning I had. to; leave-very /eSrIV to be at Nopoleon's Court, but I told "thb , party to go to, the Warden's. Office .and the certificate was r all right; Wnen licamfe back from Napoleon's, I went to the Warden's Office, and found that' they had taken out the certificate without putting my name- on it. ..I got a transfer of thp share from the ' Clerk of the Court, oh showing the agreement, the block of which I produce, -i I afterwards .'sent 'notice'' up to Kennedy to send down the original certificate, so that my name might be endorsed, thereon. Shortly, afterwards, at the Ahaufa,' I- saw Thomas Coorieyy 'and asked him about the share, and he said he would send the certificate down, but that Kennedy objected. Afterwards Cooney denied my right to any interest in the claim. This was in Byrne's presence, at the Ahaura. I know the claim. No. .1 north of prospectors : on Kelly's linb of reef. I estim ate the. value ,of one-eighth share, in the claim, which is seven men's ground at LBOO. Icould have disposed of this share in December, 187,6,' f0r LI2Q, to Mr Strike, at Christy's. At that' place I saw Cooney, when he said that he wished I had the share, but that Kennedy and Kelly were the two who /objected '■:' that Kennedy said they had got the ccr r ; tificate without me, and as the share was valuable, they.could, do without me, and that he (Cooney), would have to go with the rest. (The plaintiff then proceeded t6 prove special damages arising from his endeavors to obtain a transfer of the share, travelling three"timesf rom the'Ah'aiirarto ther^efs, lossiofrtimej <fcci), : lihaye;ljeen on the ground' lately, and find that the defendants now hold the. ; ground -com^ prised in the original certificates. , s | ■ Mr Newton, at considerable length, : addressed: the Court for the plaintiff; entering fully into every argument that had been advanced on the opposite side.; Mr Pitt (who had declined to Offer an^ evidence for~the defence)," replied at considerable length -oh ;all-the points of the case. , The Judge said he would reservja -his decision until the following morning at 10 O'clock. -: '■':''.'■■'■