WARDEN’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 1373, 24 February 1881, Page 2

WARDEN’S COURT.

Wednesday, February 23. [Before H. A.' Stratford, Esq., Warden.] APPLICATIONS. Gifney and party: application for tunnel.—Granted. Mactnahon and party: application for extension of tunnel.—Granted. Mactnahon and party: double area at Cape Terrace. —Granted. Hubs and party ; for an abandoned tunnel.—Granted. INTERFERENCE WITH A DAM. This was a case heard at the last sitting of the Court, in which the plaintiffs, John King and Edward King sued Michael lawyer and party for £75 damages, for injury they had sustained to their dam at the Greenstone, through the action of the defendants. On the other hand, the defendants maintained that the plaintiffs bad no title to the dam in question, and a nonsuit was asked for on those grounds. His Worship now gave judgment, as follows:—Having read the 109th section of the “Goldfields Act, 1866,” also sub-sections 3 and 4 of the 11th section ; the Westland Gazette, No. 21, dated Sept. 18, 1871, at pages 137 to 140, containing water-race regulations, and a parchment deed, 1514, dated 25th April, 1873, purporting to be a waterrace license, granted by H. L. Robinson, the Governor’s delegate under the provisions of the Act and regulations aforementioned, to the Greenstone and Eastern Hohuna Water-race Gold Mining Company (registered), their successors and assignees ; also a deed, dated Feb. 8, 1881, by which on certain conditions the said company did let the said race to Edmund King and John Quinn : I cannot find any evidence to show that Edmund King and John King had any right, title, or interest in the dam or reservoir more particularly mentioned in the complaint and in the evidence of witnesses ■ in the .case now before the Court; nor that they (the complainants) had any title or right in the race aforementioned before the Bth day of February, 1881. Neither is it shewn at what time on the Bth day of February last that the plaintifis became lessees of the race, the defendants having been charged for that they, on the day in question, did deprive plaintiffs of water, their property. Neither is it shewn that the defendants did take from the plaintiffs’ race (being three miles and ten chains long) any water the property of the former. For these reasons the judgment is as follows :

Case dismissed, without prejudice to any right of action by the lawful owners of the dam versus the defendants ifotf damaging the reservoir at the termiaa* tion of theHohonu water-race, with costs defendants) to be paid by the plaintiffs as follows I Four defendants) " £2 ; mileage, £1 4s j two witnesses) £1 } mileage, 12s; professional fees* £3 3s. TRESPASS. O. W. AndetsOn and others v. G. W. Brown. , Mr Perkins appeared for the plain* tiffs, and Mr Hannan for the defen* dant. This Was a case in which the ground in dispute was situated in the Kumara Education Reserve. Mr Hannan pleaded, on behalf of the defendant, that the Court had no jurisdiction, and quoted section 4 of the “ Kumara Education Reserves Act,” and section 7 of the “Mines Act w In support of his argument. Mr Perkins contended that, under section 2 of the “ Reserves Act ” power . was given the Court to adjudicate in ; the case. His Worship ruled that Mr Hannan’s objection was fatal, and that the Wat* den’s jurisdiction was ousted nnder the section quoted by the advocate for the defence. He had not the slightest hesitation in saying that if he heard the case he would be usurping a power he did not possess. The case must be struck out. APPLICATION TO CANCEL CERTIf ICAT& G. W. Brown v. James Wylde. Mr Hannan for plaintiff; Mr Per* kins for the defendant. After some discussion oyer an appli* cation of the advocate for the plaintiff for an adjournment, the case was proceeded with, and the following evidence called:— Thomas Mnirhead, a miner residing-. in the Shallow Lead, deposed i I nevef saw any application for a single man’s doable area on .the ground alluded to. , M.y mate Stewart pegged out a..claim, one man’s, double area, last week at the Shallow Lead. One of his'pegS were thrown out again by one of defendant’s party. The reason he gave for throwing out the peg was because it wais in ;: the centre :of bis ground—six mens' double area. Mr Wylde came on -the ',. i ground directly after and told me !/ hdt ’ • to take any notice of the man who ■ through out the peg, as he was “mad.” The defendant subsequently said td onr-v party “we give you that portion of ground to the ground we had marked out. My mate Stewart sold Mr Wylde a portion of thq.yery claim he marked off a second time. 1,..... am not aware of the defendants having . . .. either marked out orclaimed this ground . again. [At this stage the Warden inti-, mated that it would be advisable-.foe. him to visit the ground ;■ but as-the counsel for the defence thought no object would be served thereby, the . case proceeded.] I .observed four new pegs;and v - trenches within the six mens’ double area on the 17th of February; The pegs were not there the previous day. George Stewart, miner, Shallow Lead, ' knew the ground in dispute. Defendant bought one man’s ground from me at Christmas last year. Ido not knovr : if defendant has done anything to it since. , Qn the 16th inst I took np a doable area claim adjoining Mr Wy Ide’s, and included in it a large portion of the claim I sold to Mr Wylde. On the 14th we asked Mr Wylde to show * ns the boundaries of that double area claim for one man he bought from me. He shewed me the six mens’ double area, and in this was included a large portion of the claim T sold him. I then pegged out a claim alongside their boundary. One of the defendants threw out one of our pegs. The defendant bought my claim, I believe, for the Long Tunnel Company. I saw fresh pegs on the 17th. I had not seen any pegs there previously. By Mr Perkins : I neither saw pegs or notices until the 17ch February. George William Brown : I went to Mr Wylde on the 11th to show me the boundaries of the double area be held. He showed me the boundry of six men’s double area and then he showed . me the boubdry of ten men’s ground. I know the claim defendant bought from Stewart; part of that claim is inside the six men’s ground, and the ! other half outside the boundary. He has also, nearly another single cljUk ’ outside that again. Stewart Jlggj|ed\ one man’s double area on tbeTsorth* ! east of the six men’s boundary. The area in dispute is within the boundaries., of the defenents six men’s ground. To Mr Perkins: I was not present ! when Stewart sold the claim to Wylde, ‘ although I know the ground. Mr Hannan relied on the facts that there were no pegs in accordance with. the mining regulations. Mr Perkins asked for a nonsuit, on the ground that the plaintiffs, -had

Strewn ho case; they Had'put'id no Certificate before the Court. The that Mr Hannan bad to a extent been misinformed) or else His client had withheld something as he must have seen by his own witness. , He should dismiss the Case without prejudice. Costs allowed, £2 for witnesses, and £1 Is counsel’s fees. The Court then adjourned and the Warden inspected some portion of the goldfield.