WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XV, Issue 1841, 30 June 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Fkiday> June 26. ( ! (Before Mr Warden Whitefqord.) [ Savage v. Southworth .-— The complaintj in this case was that the complainant was. a shareholder with, the defendant in a mining claim, water race, &c, at Duffer), Creek, and yet the defendant refused to hand over to the complainant his share of the gold the product of the claim, or the ■value thereof.' The claim was foraierlyi held in co-partnership by the defendant! and a person named James Davey; Jni consequence of a pressure of creditors,! Bavey Bought the protection of the Bank-! ruptcy Conrt, but . he had previously] transferred his mining property .to Savage as a security for a debt of L/tl 53 6d due him, . Subsequently - another . : creditor named Olaraon obtained judgment against Davey, before the official notice of the declaration of Davey's insolvency was gazetted, and he. seized ; upon the: share. Application- -was - : . made -to - the Judge- mv bankruptcy, and his Honor' issued an; order vesting the property in the Provisional Trustee for the benefit of all Davey 's creditors. In the meantime! Savage placed a . man to represent him; in the claim, and . paid him wages to ai certain amount. There was a balance still; due to the before-mentioned hired man,; and a slight complication arose as to whowould be responsible for this amount, but! he is evidently determined to make himself secure, for" he has made a claim for hi 3 money on the plaintiff, the. defendant; the Trustees, and threatens to hold possession of the share as well, until his demands are satisfied. He thinks it will go hard if with this quadruple security he does not get . paid. Acting under the; vesting order, the, Trustee gave notice to; 1 Southwdrth that he would be held respon- 1 sible to the Qourt for the product ot the claim coming to I}avey's share, and he accordingly handed seventeen ounces of gold to the Trustee as Bavey's proportion of the. first washing, Southworth'a, de--fence now, was that he acted under instructions from the Trustee, and that his liabilityceased when he gave up the gold, for which he held a receipt. It was contended .by Mr Staite, for the plaintiff, that by the transfer his title to the share, and , the ; produce of it, was complete.; Although his right might be impeached hereafter, it was good now; an i if the Trustee persisted in retaining the gold he would be made a co-respondent with Southworth, and be held personallyliable. The title of the plaintiff may be vpida^le, bus it was, not now void, and until it was set aside he was entitled to all benefits obtained under it. !Mr Staite quoted from Griffiths and Holmes on bankruptcy, and stated jthat as Davey was notyet adjudicated abankrupt,andhehada right to transfer the share in the manner lie did to prevent a tptal sacrifice of his property, gavage only lield a sprt of equity.qfr redemption until his olaim was satisfied, and when he was paid the amount of his debt, either from the proceeds of the claim or otherwise, he was quite willing to relinquish his lien on the Bhare. The plaintiff proved the purchase of the share, ; and put in the sale-note. The Truatee proved the filing of Davey's

declaration ; and that the right to purchase of the Bhare was set down in the schedule as worth LSO. The defendant proved that the share was worth L6O, as the very lowest price, and also that he paid the gold from the washing to the Trustee. The Warden said it waa an oversight that legal assistance was not retained by the Trustee, for the defence. The defendant was placed in; an-awkward positioo, for he , evidently acted in good faith, and yet had made himself almost liable, .personally for the gold. . ; The ,p,gurt had no power to. interfere with the Trustee in Bankruptcy^ or to order hia.^to. give • up the gold, and yet the plaintiff seemed to have an equitable right to the proceeds of the share, for the Court must recognise the holder of a transfer- | certificate, or of the original certificate as (he owner before the Court, of mining property. .Even supposing the Trustee had acted illegally, the Warden could not question his action, : and he would again repeat that, the Trustee should .have taken steps to '-have the. defendant represented in the case, for as 'iH'ifsd his'd'dfenciS was thrown upon the Opurt.;V Mr Staite still contended that undejr! apy circutnstances the Trustee was. qnly^ entitled/to ' seize. The equity of redemption/ prVvidetf'that he could get hold of such a shadowy substance, but he exceeded his power 3 in meddling with the i'. share. | '.After; taking further evidence, ; ihe .Marden', reserved hia decision,, which he, gave on Saturday morniug. His Worship in giving judgment, said a veryrnice point was involved In the case. Oh the ;face of it, Savage was entitled to the gold, and on the other hand, Southworth, if made liable, would be placedin a critical position, after having acted in good faith, and on the order of the Trustee.: The Court could not interfere with the Trustee,} ,andr/the only escape from the difficulty was to give a j Verdict for' the defendant;- 'but' } without \ costs, .leaying- the plaintiff the option of , bringing for ward his claim 1 'during the ) .proceedings, in the ., Bankruptcy; Court. -. Verdict for the defendant apcordlpgly;. Johnston .y. .Cioughessy.-T-A' complaint i that the defendant had pulled out a sec- : tion peg of the complainant, at Hatter's Terrace, Nelson' Oreek, r atfdOencroaShed upon a portion of the complainant's tion. The 'plaintiff aaid'-he bought the house ;he: resided; < in, together] with the , section on which it stood,- inUnne, 1869, > iformerly store-" keepers at' Hatter'si 1 :i ln ; cotißequence of the recent survey of the township of Hatter's, .certain. alterations, in the building would be required to leaV f e_ s^ace for a street, ; arid ' the dispute' arose' as to the .prior right toi a few inches of grouncf on the boundaries of both sections^; The defendant alleged that he had. built on and oocupied- his section before, Hill, Brothers, through whom, the plaintiff .derived) his title, set up at business in Hatter's. His rightrW'as the! prior fright, 1 andr.he denied encroaching upon the plaintiff's land. . A good deal of evidence;: was taken as to the original position of the : :plcemise3 of defendant and HiU Brothersj^as to the priority of occupation, and the matter of title, some 1 of the <( oldest inhabitants'' ofrthe terrace giving testimony as , to the bound' aries. It transpired during ihb hearing of the. case that sites in the business,portion of the township had risen reoeriilyito an almost fabulous' yalue. f 'The Warden held the defendant to have the best^title, and gave a verdict for him with' cttlts. Mr StaiteifbrthecomEilainant.. | \