WARDEN'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 1542, 6 September 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuesday, September G. [Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., Warden.] The Court opened at 9 a.ni. m'mahon and party v. o’biUen and PARTY. Plaintiffs in this case alleged that the defendants did not take and maintain possession of their double-area claim at Cape Terrace in such manner, and with such boundaries and marks as directed by the “ Mines Act, 1877/* and the Regulations made thereunder, and that they were not entitled to the exclusive occupation of such claim; also that the certificate representing suck claim had been obtained by misrepresentation, and prayed that certificate 18690 of defendants be cancelled, and the plaintiffs put in possession of so much of said land as they require to complete their ordinary claim of four men’s ground, or such other order be made herein as the Court may .deem fit. Judgment in this case had been deferred from the previous sitting of the Court on Monday, August 30th. His Worship now ruled—The evideuce preponderates in>.favor of the allegations by the complainants, viz., “ that defendants did not, ; before applying for a double area or obtaining a certificate, No. 18G90 for .the same, comply with Rule No. 23 of the Regulations uuder the Mines Act, 187’7/* f'hey having failed to mark the boundaries of their proposed claim in the manner prescribed by . Regulations 10 and 3 of the said as that the defendants set forth in their application that they had ‘^marked’ , the ground applied for, which statement was incorrect, as marking means in accordance with the Mines Act Regulations, in which the defendants had failed, not having trenched the Cor* ners of their proposed claim : judgment would be therefore for the complainants; certificate No. 18690, for a double-area claim, to be cancelled, and is cancelled accordingly; but the Court will make no other order moved for by the prayer of the petition. With costs as fallow J The four plaintiffs allowed 10s each'for their attendance, and 2s each mileage J Court costs 14s, and professional fee £2 2a. The only other case, one asking for a dissolution of partnership , between James Williams and Henry Stokes, was settled out of Court. • This concluded the business of the Court.