WARDEN’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1923, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT.

'i nn;si!av, ,in.v ih. (I’Hmc \\ ;< r> !o n .Meldrum, Ky|.. 5.. M.) Tercmnkau Timi.<■ ]■ < <>\.. I.til (Mr .M urdoi li i si! ['render if timhcr license. Adjourned. <■. I). Mil.mi i.Mr Murdoch) [>i os jcm t>;l;; li< <• n~i•. Kapil,m. (hunted. \\ liiley s Saa mill l.ul. (Ml .Murdoch) la -I:rr,'ni!ar .sawmill license anil lor i !ia iiLir ol 1i t (I ran toil. I). ( ■ Much i.Mr .Miinlooli) lor handsn "'i HA ami tiinlior -plittiiid warrant. A i'ailllr•’i. (■‘’ranted. •dilin I'md (Mr Sellers! 10-r two water raoow ilam ami claim, Tueker Mai.A'lj.mi no.!. AIM'I.K .VTIOX f(> I HKIIKiAIUXC;. .Veil _\si■ 1 ni!al111 (.Mr .Murdoch) v. 1»u 1 1h' lrn>l"o (Mr I)i ioo.i n l . ajiplnatiini •>y 1 ’ nl >!ii• Trustee for rehearim:. <>p-|»'-e,l liv Mr Mllrl l lll 1 1. Mr Done.in said tne application for a lvliearillwas iinale uinler -eel ien ol the Milling Ail. mi tin l oTinniils that Ini l her eri.lenee was available. that a ! ini'-take had keen made, ami that tins doehi nil mu made was cm reel. lie 1 lannis! Mat the tre-h evidence would ; sli'Wv I hat !he claim was jcyred and i that the lieela rat ion was true, and not untrue a- 1 !i i hy the Warden in his i n i lym e lll. Mr Murdoch su I that ,!„• delemlant as- asked In- the Conn ill 1 lie lirst "hieli was not fort'leeiiiine at tins next sitting and now the del'emlaiif ask for a rehnanny to slip) ly the evidence they refu-eil in supply previousI.'. . Ills liiir-liu, -aid there was no areal <1 i tii nit y in I lie ] re-i m i a-e to di'iiilr. It wa- an a iy>l lea ! ion tor a roliearine'. not an appeal. 'file point to deride was whether the < nirt would he justified in rroycnim; Ihe case. r I he only eroiinds for iloinii so was that the new evidence was mi in the conscious |'i wse-s in ii nf l lit* defendants and could 111,1 even with dne diligence have hcell irtveii. lie considered that if proper diligence had lieeii u-"d hy the defen,la lit or i oi! 11 -i ’ I that sii.-h evidence could have lie'll produced hill this was not done. If lie granted a reheariny in this a rehearing would have to tie riven in every ease. In this cusp a ,1 ist i nei warnin': was yiven by the Ileiwh. el more evidence heinr reipnrcd. aml theiioh Id days ela|ised to the nest silt ill:: no notice was Va-keii. 1 ink ■!' the circiimsiain'cs the application for a rohea; im: would he refused. ( c.sts L'.t ds were eranli'l Mr .Murdnch.