WARDEN’S COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 19 October 1933, Page 6

WARDEN’S COURT

HEARING OF SUIT TO-DAY

CEDERAIAN v. MARSHALL.

]n 'the Warden’s lOourfc at Hokitika, tins morning, .Albert (Je derm an (Mr Elcock), proceeded .agai n st Frederick Charles Marshall (Mr Murdoch), f<vr the retina of goods, or the sum of £lO.

Plaintiff-.gaid lie had applied to the 'liquidators of a sawmill for some water pipes, and later he was told he could have them. He removed a portion of them, and later lent them to Karicri 'Sawmilling 0». Ltd. The remainder were not removed for some time after, when they were lent to neighbouring prospectors. Before claiming the pipes, defendant knew that plaintiff had secured the pipes from the liquidator. The total value of the pipes whs £42. They were worth little when he took them, but they wore invaluable to him in his work, and would be almost unobtainable to-day. On bearing that defendant had purchased the pipes from Mr Teunent, plaintiff went and visited the latter, as lieconsidered the liquidator’s transact : on 'was final. Defendant claimed that the pipes had al ways been his, and that he had paid £2 to. Stratford, Blair, a»d Co. to make certain /of them. Plaintiff said die had tried -to come to s ome agreement, but defendant would not listen to him. He’ Ascertained that : the pipes had been removed by defendant' without permission froth' Stony IC-'eek. -Defendant had also removed the .pipes which plaiiitff had lent to neighbouring prospectors, and waa at present using them, and since then had claimed that they were hi s ' own.

To MurdochHe did not knew that Marshall had invoked the aid of the police to, take the pipes from igtotiey Creek. Defendant was using plaintiff’s pipes to carry the water which lie .got from plaintiff under an agreement between them. Counsel for defendant; Yon are claiming that the pipes were a gift to you .in June, 1929?—Yes. George Sutherland; said that, with his son and another, he had taken up a- claim adjoining plaintiff's. He • said that he had .got some pipes from 'plaintiff. Defendant had seen them removing them, and it* was some two or three months Ibefore he' claimed them as his' ownl There was no suggestion that Marshall had let them have them, a§ they wore Cederman’s. A receipt, ,p”oduced by defendant for the purchase of the pipes from Stratford, Blair, aM : Co., . bore a date, for some"'.months | •previous to which, witness had been working at his claim. Witness' denied. that Marshall had told him, when they were! removing the pipes to their own claim, 6iat they >could have the use of, them. : ..... .

David Joseph Hutchinson, sawmill hand, ;said he examined the pipes recently. ’ ;They ■were'rail solid/ and’ carried the; pressure, well. If: he wanted' them he. would give :2s at foot for them, and he considered plaintiff’s estimated value in order. .

Thomas. Janies Stuart, sawmiller, said that they had - the'pipes, from plaintiff, for from twelve to eighteen months. ••After:- that.. they • were ;-taken- ’by defendant) They Avere .in .good repair:/ Defendant, 'Marshall,' farmer arid miner, said he had taken up the claim known as. Glass,* in July 1927. He had secured the pipes -and a hut from ,Blair 'for .£5, before the time at 'which plaintiff' claimed he had

secured them. His partner who negotiated the deal, had got a receipt, but when they went to -the hut, they found that a quantity of iron b».d been removed from the hut, and the receipt missing, .

Counsel for defendant; ■ Plaintiff's j jelriimis from June 1929. 'Where were! the pipes for three months before then?—We -were using some of them on ouir claim, while the others were | on our property. Defendant said that plaintiff’s idea ■ was to '‘jump” his claim, and. ... j

Counsel : Don’t bother about that.

Defendant said that he told Sutherland when -removing the pipes, that

they were his, and that he could have the loan of them free of charge. He also offered them other conveniences..

Continuing his evidence, defendant stated that since he bad paid the £5 he had paid an additional £7 in preparing them for necessary work, before plaintiff had lent them to Kanieri iSawmillin-g -Co. Plaintiff had not approached him regarding some arrangement, and further, he (defendant), had not received the full supply -of water according to the agreement.

Air Elcock ; When Air Tennen-t disthat the -pipes had already been given to plaintiff, he returned your cheque didn’t he?—Yes. But you returned it, trying to keep him to the arrangement with you?— Yes.

You tried to take advantage -of an innocent mistake ?—No.

Air Murdoch: ALr Tennent has kept the £5 you paid for the pipes and the hut?—Yes.

Air C'ede-rm-an knew from the time the mill was dismantled that you were claiming them as your own.—Yes.

And knew that you were using them when he made application to Stratford, -Blair and Co. for them?—Yes.

Manuel Freitas, a miner of Hokitika, and a. paintnar with defendant in the claim at Lang’s road, said that- he had purchased the hut and pipes for £5 from Mr Oaldef, who was in charge of the dismantling, and acting on. instructions from Mr Tennent. (Still sitting)', 5