WARDEN'S COURT, NO TOWN.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1344, 19 November 1872, Page 4

WARDEN'S COURT, NO TOWN.

Tuesday, November 12. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.)

Ovington and Watkins v. Quinlivan and Eriokson. — A case of disputed ownership of a claim at Davis Terrace, at top of Left-Hand Branch, No Town Creek. This case turned upon the question of priority of occupation. The plaintiffs were nonsuited with costs and professional costs. Messrs Newton and Guinness for the complainants ; Mr Perkins for the defendants.

__BoSt*uua- -— a »»...w ••• ty-ui.- ayaTin.— The plaintiffs claimed each, an equal share, under an agreement with the defendant iv the prospecting claim on Davis Terrace, No Town, or L3O compensation. After a long hearing, the Warden awarded the complainants L 4, with coats, Mr Newton, for the plaintiffs ; Mr Perkins for the defendant.

Law and Ashworth v. J. F. Wickbam. — An action for compensation for damage done to mining property of the complainants by reason of the defendant's action. This case was in connection with an action for assault which was tried in the other Court earlier in the day. The parties are working at Swiss Terrace, in the Candlelight district. The water-races of each intersect, and on the 30th Oct., the defendant turned off his water as usual as he alleged. Shortly afterwards he found his hut was in danger of being flooded, and on ascertaining the cause he found the complainants had diverted the water so as to run towards his dwellinghouse. The complainants alleged that the water Bhould of right run there, for when Wickham turned off his water on the day of the dispute, it ran down into a paddock of theirs, and did considerable damage. Impromptu plans of the race and claims were made by the complainants in Court, and extemporised drawings were also put in by the defendant, showing the relative positions of the claim and race. From a careful scrutiny of these works of art, it clearly appeared that the parties had, for want of a little more neighborly action towards each other, placed themselves in a "regular fix,", or as a witness described the situation, " all hands were between the devil and the deep sea." If the complainants were allowed to run tho water as they intended, the hut of the defendant would be swamped and eventually washed away ; and if the defendant had his way of directing the stream, the stream, the paddock and other expensive workings of tho complainants would be destroyed. The Warden effected a solution of the difficulty by directing the defendant, who had the advantage of priority of occnpatio,n to cease working for one week. In the meantime the complainants would have to cut a byewajb, at a spot indicated on both places, so as to allow the waste water to escape without injury to either party. The proper courso of the complainants' when the dispute arose was to come to the Court for redress, but this they did not do, and one of them took the law into his own hands ; they would therefore have to bear the expense of making the byewash, and pay^ the costs of the present action. Mr Gainness for the complainants; Mr Perkins for the defence. •

A ruraber of miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the Court adjourned to 26th November.