WARDEN’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 9 June 1932, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT

A DEFENDED SUIT.

At the Warden’s Court yesterday afternoon, the adjourned sitting (owing to the Licensing Court sitting intervening) was continued when the lollowing defended suit was dealt with: — David Bishop Jellie (Mr J. A. -Murdoch), v. Thomas Clarence Gill, (Air J. W. Maninui). Plaintiff claimed that defendant had not complied witn„ tile requirements in respect to his prospecting, license in the working of land at the hlaast, and therefore sought to have defendant.’,.s license cancelled, and paintiff declared first applicant for same; C.uuse! lor plaintiff claimed that the land in question, had l,eeh. unoccupied and unused for some time, contrary to tile requirements of the re-' gelations.

Plaintiff said that the land here no signs/iQf. having been worked in recent years and lie had been led to assume that it was Crown land. Mr Robinson had marked out the land for him, and it was after that, that they found that the "was a license held'by defendant, who raised objection, lie had gone south in good faith after making inquiries at the Court at Hokitika.

To Iris counsel, plaintiff said there was a syndicate behind his project, prepared to spend Llo(),()0() and it was int nded to launch throe dredging schemes. In reply to counsel for defendant plaintiff admitted agreeing to defendant company joining with plaintiff's if the former paid the expenses, of the case. Ho considered the time was ripe to get to work with the dredging. Vivian Robinson said ho had been over the land which showed no signs of wofir since October 1931, when defendant assumed the title, and there was no machinery on the ground, while he only found due peg. They had been informed that no title to | the land existed at the North Haast, and they had chosen this locality as a likely area. If defendants were not prepared to negotiate plaintiff would go ahead. Witness denied that other pegs had been tampered with. John Edward Cron said that, to the best of his knowledge, defendant had done no work on this area, although there were signs of old workings. It was more or less known in the locality that Mr Gill had a license for this area. Counsel for defendant: You saw Robinson pull one peg out, didn’t you? —Yes. And he wanted you to say that there were no pegs, but you refused ?—Yes. Witness said that .Robinson had pulled a peg out near where he had put in one of his own.

Counsel for defendant said that defendant represented a Wellington syndicate which proposed going in for dredging. A certain amount of boring had been carried out on the south of the river. Only dish-washing had been carried out on the north area. The plan of campaign was to work from the southern portion right up to tho north, and a eonsiclerliiim of money had been expended. He claimed that Where a prospect licit! two or more chains, contagious to each other diligent work upon qhe, with tho intention of extending the work tthe others, should suffice to defend him from a claim for forfeiture. Evidence was called hv counsel for the defence, relative to the amount

of work done and money' expended on the project. Judgment with costs was given for defendant.