WARDEN’S COURT, STAFFORD.

Kumara Times, Issue 1422, 23 April 1881, Page 2

WARDEN’S COURT, STAFFORD.

Thursday, April 21. [Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.] APPLICATIONS.

Ah Young and Party applied for a tail-race at Liverpool Bills.—Granted. Ah Chuck and Ah Chew applied for diversion of Ballarat Bills Creek ; also for a flood-race at Duckworth Bend.— Mr Seddon appeared for applicants.— The Warden stated that in granting a Creek diversion, it behoved him to be very careful. The applicants had, however, made out a good case; and seeing it would tend to prevent litigation, the application would be granted. John Ultou v. Sim Ling and party Suit to recover the sum of ,£2O for

alleged damages to complainant's headrace at Humpy Creek.—Mr Seddon for plaintiff j Mr Hannan for defendants.— This case had been adjourned from last Court day, there being no interpreter present, and as the defendants answered “No savee” to every question, the Warden had no alternative but to adjourn.—ln opening the case, Mr Seddon informed the Court that to prevent another adjournment plaintiff had provided an interpreter ; he also understood that defendants had also an interpreter. Under the circumstances there could be no harm in having two, seeing one would act as a check upon the other, and perhaps nothing but truth might be elicted from the Chinese witnesses.—Mr Hannan objected to plaintiff’s interpreter The Warden : I cannot allow the objection ; the plaintiff was put to expense by the adjournment and it was incumbent upon them to provide an interpreter. Under the circumstances the Court will allow the two interpreters to act; the plaintiff’s interpreter to examine Chinese witnesses on their behalf, and defendants’ interpreter to act vice versa.—The case occupied the Court from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff, £1 damages, costs £lO 2s. John Ulton v. Ah Yung and party.— Mr Seddon for plaintiffs ; Mr Hannan for defendants.—Plaintiff sued defendant for £6 damages, for working among portion of his head-race on Humpy’s Terrace.—Defendants pleaded that they had bought the head-iaCe from plaintiffs three years ago.—This case occupied the Court some time.—The Warden postponed his decision, seeing the defendants had instituted a suit for abandonment, which was to be beard next Court day. At the same time he was convinced that the defence as to purchase was completely broken down. Alfred Bolton and Alfred Stephen v. Robert Davidson.—Mr Seddon for plaintiffs, Mr Byrne for defendant.— This was a suit instituted to cancel an extended portion of defendant’s headrace 3185.—1 n opening the case plaintiffs’ advocate stated that this was a very important case, and the first brought before the Court wherein a portion of a race Was asked to be cancelled on the ground of disuse and abandonment. He argued that by the process to acquire, namely, the Warden’s consent on application, so by suit could the Warden take from ■ and if provision was made by the regulation to cancel the whole of any race, surely a portion may be cancelled.—Mr Byrne, on behalf of defendant, asked for a non-suit. The plaintiffs sought to cancel a portion of a race, yet every day the other portion was in constant use. The argument used was absurd, and ought not to be entertained by the Court. The Warden overruled the points raised, and decided to take the evidence. It was then proved by plaintiffs that for three years that portion of the race sought to be cancelled had not been used.—The defendant’s evidence proved that four yards of extension was in daily use, and that since dispute he had entered into an agreement with John Roberts to use the other portion,—The Warden, in giving his decision, admitted that this case was a very important one, and required carefully considering. The interpretation he put upon the regulation relied upon was that the word “whole” therein mentioned must and did include a portion and though the right in question was under the old regulation, still, seeing the present law did not place defendant in a worse position, the two could be applied. Now, say a race was registered six miles long, and under that six miles of race was a lead of gold ; would it be reasonable that by the owner of that race using 100 yards of it, that other miners were to provide an equally good race, or pay compensation for the other part which migh f - never be used and which for years had not been used? He thought not, and would therefore give a decision for plaintiffs. Portion of race cancelled accordingly, with costs against defendant.—Mr Byrne, on behalf of defendant, asked for an order to stay plaintiffs from interfering with cancelled portion of race, seeing his client wished time to consider whether or not to appeal.— The Court refused to make any order. The Court then adjourned at 8.30 p.m.