WARDEN’S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 1650, 12 January 1882, Page 2

WARDEN’S COURT.

Wednesday, January 11. [Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., Warden ] Tne following applications were disposed of:— R. Rotluvell applied for a residence area, which Was grunted conditionally. A similar application of T, Levit, was also granted conditionally. P. Moran and party made application through their agent, Mr Hannan, under section 126 of the Mining Regulations, to restrain O’Neill and party on the one side and Yoysey and party on the other, from sluicing away portions of the applicants’ claim, and requesting the Court to interfere and make such order in the matter of sluicing away boundaries by leaving a batter or slope at bottom in the one claim equivalent to that sluiced away from the top in the adjoining claim; the applicants to be bound accordingly; or some other equitahe order between the parties.—Mr Seddon opposed the application, contending that the Warden had no power to interfere, and that the section quoted did not apply.—The Warden- intimated that he had the

power, and adjourned the application in order tliat Mr Grow might submit some equitable plan as to taking out these boundaries. Tile application of Jamies-m anct parly, by Uieir.aghiit. Mr Hannhu, for a double-area at Cape Terrace waS granted. D. Bi-atby iidd party a(ipliei) for d, double-area at Cape Terrace.—Granted; , -suits; Rowley tfiiii others V, Nei’il e and Rj’an.—Mr Hiiiinaq appeared for tlie plaintiffs, and Mr Warner fur tile* defendants.—This Was a claim for damages for interference vHth a claim* and for trespass, which latter was admitted; Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for Is to the Crown for breach of regulations; Court costs* l8s; alid witnesses’ expenses, £2, Rowley and others y. O’Neill and others.—Mr Hannan appeared for the plaintiffs* and Mr Warner fob the de : fendants. No evidence was taken in this case, but argument was heard On a legal point. Eventually, a line of 5s was imposed. Court cdstS, £1 : legal fee, £1 Is. P; Brick v. O’Sullivatl arid Others.— Mr Hannan appeared for the defendants. In this case it was claimed that certain interest had been abandoned,* and that the claim had not been sufficiently represented. This was a friendly suit, and judgment was given by con-; sentj that 20,000 feet of defendants’ claim be forfeited. The case of Accoiirt and party v. O’Brien, in which Mr Hannan appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Barff for the defendant, Mr Barff made an application to the Warden to visit the ground; The case was then further adjourned to the 29th inst;