WARDEN'S COURT.

Kumara Times, Issue 2035, 7 March 1883, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuesday, March 6. [Before Frank Bird, Esq., Warden.] APPLICATIONS. Hugh Brown's application, by his agent Mr Hannan, for a residence area, was withdrawn. Charles Stockman and others' application to construct a tail-race along Burgoo Flat, by the Teremakau River, was struck out, there being no appearance of applicants. Patrick Clune, by his agent Mr Hannan, applied for a residence area fronting Kumara and Dillraan's Town Road, near Patrick's Terrace. As there was no oVgection in Land Office, application granted. Solomon Pascoe and party applied to work ground in their extended claim occupied by a portion of James Holmes' water-race, and applied for permission to deviate said race on condition of their providing an equally good race for the owner, as per plan produced in Court.—Mr Hannan for applicants ; Mr Seddon for the objector.—The application was adjourned to the 22nd March. A similar application by John Reynolds and party and Jones and party, whose claims adjoin, was also adjourned to the same date. Mr Perkins here stated that Mr Guinness, who was to conduct the next case for plaintiffs, had not arrived, but he would be here as soon as the tram came in from Greymouth. He wished to apply for an adjournment of the case till then. As he himself appeared for the defendant, and had no objection to this course, he hoped an adjournment would be granted. His Worship then adjourned the Court, at 10.20 a.m. till 11 o'clock. SUIT. George Watson, Thomas Robinson, John Owen, John Kirkman, John Stewart, and Andrew Stenhouse v. John Gow.—ln this case the plaintiffs sued the defendants for that the defendant agreed on or about the month of May, 1882, with the plaintiffs to let them have the sole right and use oftfix Government heads of water from the Kumara water-race for the first two months free of charge, end afterwards at the rate of £1 10s per day ; and the defendant did all things necessary on his part to allow the plaintiffs to have the use of the said water, and did permit the plaintiffs to have the use of the said water for one day, to wit, on the 30th day of January, 1883, but since then has refused and still doth refuse to permit the plaintiffs to have the use of the said water, whereby the plaintiffs have not been able to work their mining claim, and have suffered great loss and damage. Wherefore, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant be ordered to carry out his said agreement with the plaintiffs, and permit them to have the use of the said water as agreed. Mr A. R. Guinness appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Perkins for defendant, who is the race manager. Mr Perkins pleaded a general denial. George Watson, sworn, said: I am one of the plaintiffs in this case. I recollect about the month of May last there being a dispute between the miners and the race "manager relative to an agreement concerning the use of water and the sludge-channel. There was a general engagement with the manager of the field. I have had interviews with Mr Gow on the subject of water-supply. It was a general agreement from the Mines department. We had no written agreement. In January last Mr Gow put up our gauge-box. I expected the same terms that other parties were getting. When we went to Mr Gow we told him we were ready to be supplied with water. The day we had the water was on the 30th January. We asked him for the water. Every night we used to go to see if we could get the water. The man in charge replied—" Look here ! Georgey ! It's no use you coming here for the next three mouths." I have asked Mr Gow for the water on several occasions. Mr Gow told me he had never given anj r one a prior right to the water. There are sometimes six and sometimes twelve heads of water going past our tail-race. By Mr Perkins: We were No. 29 on the list of applicants. I know that Mr Gow would let us have the water if he could. Witness continued: By that Mr Gow implied that he would give us the water when others were served. His Worship to Mr Guinness : Have you any other evidence? This man knows nothing about an agreement. John Gow, sworn, said : I am manager of the Kumara water-race. This party applied to me to use the sludgechannel. There were instructions issued from the Mines Department that two months free water was to be given instead of one. All who raalse applica-

tion, I give two months' water, when I have it. This party asked me to supplywater; I give all parties two months' water when I have it. Other parties are using the water who are further dowu the sludge-channel. I did not inform plaintiffs that they could have the water. I give others preference who have opened out their claims earlier; for instance, one party might have opened out three years and another to-morrow; I give the water to those who I consider have a prior right to it. I dont know that I told Watson and party that they could have water; all I know is that there are parties "who have a prior right to the sludge-channel to whom I give prior water. I admit having told these parties that others had a prior right. By Mr Perkins: lam willing to give these men the water when I have it—perhaps within two months' time. This concluded the evidence. Mr Perkins, for the defence, argued that it having been admitted by the plaintiffs that they could get water when it was " to spare," showed that there was no agreement; and the fact of plaintiffs applying for water from day to day showed that the manager was willing to give them water when he bad it to spare. Mr Guinness : Has Mr Gow shown the Court that he has not the water to spare 1 The arrangement was not an equitable one for the miners. His Worship said that looking into this complaint he found that there was not even a verbal agreement to supply water. He thought those who had the priority of right should be first served. It would be unjust to those men who had been using the water for the past six months to take it away from them and to give it to new applicants. As there was no written agreement, judgment would be for defendant, with costs of Court Bs, and professional fee >£3 3s. This concluded the Uusiness of the Court.