WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1470, 21 April 1873, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

• Friday, Aprii 18. (Before Mr Warden Whitefoord.) Henderson v. Camiloli and party.—A complaint against the defendants for unlawfully shifting the pegs of the plaintiffs claim at Orwell Creek. This was one of the numerous disputes arising from the compulsory shifting of the boundaries of the several claims to bring them into conformity with the base-line laid off on the new lead at Orwell Creek by the Government Surveyor. The plaintiff took pos-, session of 82ft of surplus ground adjoining-; the claim of the defendants in March The defendants marked off their claim in February. When Mr Lewis laid off his base-line, the defendants shifted their pegs, aud, by so doing, one of his parallel lines intersected the plaintiffs claim, catting off nearly one-half his ground. As the boundaries then were, the original pe&s of the plaintiff's spare ground stood within the defendants' claim. The defendants pulled those pegs out, and threw them away; this wag the ostensible ground of complaint, but the real cause of action was evidently to decide the ownership of the surplus ground. The Warden, in giving judgment, said strictly speaking the plaintiff was going for the surplus ground, although he sued for a penalty for a breach of the Regulations in altering the pegs. He allowed the evidence to be taken merely to come at the merits of the dispute. Both parties were to blame, the plaintiff in supposing that, because he held 82ft of ground before the base-lino was laid off, he was entitled to the same quantity now, and consequently expected that the boundaries of all claims should be shifted to make room for him and the defendants wore at fault in pulling out the pegs. This interference with pegs would not be permitted, because they were necessary, to identify ground in cases of dispute, and tho defendants yttxc

trongly advised not to be guilty of a irailar act again. The defendants were vrongdoers in the 6rst instance, because hey marked off 40ft more ground than hey were entitled to, and the plaintiff arould now be entitled to that 40ft or such quantity of surplus ground as might be -left after the defendants took their quantity. Disputes like these had ocr purred at other places, and they would continue to occur as long as persons marking claims would persist in adhering to imaginary base-lines of their own. The ;ase would be dismissed, but as the defendants had illegally interfered with the pegs they would not be allowed costs. Baxter and party v. Hanna Mid others. —A complaint of illegal interference of the defendants with the head water of the plaintiffs at German Creek, near Ahaura. rhe plaintiffs put in certificates of registration for their water rights extending aver a period of nearly seven years. This was an action arising out of the famous Clause 8 Section 10 of the Regulations. From the evidence it appeared that the plaintiffs, from first to last, expended nearly L2OOO on their head race and works. Several parties from time to time, during their long occupancy, set .in, to work in the different watercourses which supply their race, but as they did not suffer serious inconvenience, and as the different parties seemed to be making bonafide use of the water, they did not complain, especially as these workings were chiefly confined to the tributaries of the main source of supply. : The present defendants came at last, and erected a dam across the main creek, and by stopping the night water seriously interfered with the supply in the plaintiff's race. The defence was that by the Regulations the plaintiffs were compelled to leave one sluice head of water in the bed of the creek, and the defendants insisted upon this being done! One of the defendants, \|ho informed the Court that "he was 'an early bird of a morning," said he put the dam in and stopped the flow of the water, because he had a right so to do, and he insisted upon his right at all events to the night water. On being requested to produce the certificate of registration for their dam the defendants were unable to do so. They admitted that the dam was not registered, and that itjwas erected without the permission of {he Court. On the question of damages being raised, the plaintiffs said that 4 through the action of the defendants by causing the water to flow irregularly, between one-third and one-half the time they should be at work was wasted, and the whole party had to remain idle. For the defendants it was alleged that there were three miles of payable creek workings in the locality which would be entirely shut up if the plaintiffs had the sole right to the water. The defendants said that they were making small wages, and if they were deprived of water they would be thrown out of employment. The Warden considered the defendants had unlawfully interfered with the rights of the plaintiffs by erecting a dam for which they did not receive permission or hold a certificate of registration. Verdict for -the plaintiffs, with L 5 damages and costs. Mr Staite for the plaintiffs. On Saturday, the Warden made an order and issued notices to the defendants and others in the above case, directing such arrangements as would make an equitable distribution of the water, so as to interfere as little as possible with the rights of the complainants, and at the same time allow the other parties to continue working. Zanicola and party v. Surgeon and party. — An action to recover L2O, as damages for running tailings and sludge into a tunnel tail-race of the plaintiffs at Half-Ounce. The plaintiffs hold one of the long tunnel claims at Half-Ounce, and the defendants are working oh one of the shallow terrrces westward of the deep lead. The defendants broke through into the workings of plaintiffs, and: allowed a quantity of water and sludge to come in, injuring the tunnel and other works, and endangered the lives of the plaintiffs. The breaking through was not denied, but it Was alleged that a verbal agreement had been made that for LI per week the plaintiffs were to drain the workings of the defendants, and also that the portion of the workings into which the defendants allowed the water to flow had been abandoned by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs denied the agreement, although it was admitted one of them did make a sort of bargain about the drainage with the defendants, but the rest of the company repudiated it. They also claimed that they never abandoned any portion of their workings. It was also alleged for the plaintiffs that one of the defendants had by misrepresentation obtained an order from the Warden, directing the plaintiffs to allow the defendants to break through for ventilation, when. in reality the plaintiffs were led to believe the order was obtained for drainage purposes. The hearing of the case occupied several hours, when the Warden gave damages against the defendants for LlO, with costs, and directed them to pay the plaintiffs a drain* age rent of LI per week for six months; One of the defendants who obtained the order by mirepresentation from the Wiir-r den was called up and severely reprimanded by tfie Court, Mr Staite for the plaintiffs.