SQUATTERS' PREROGATIVES.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 33, 22 August 1863, Page 6

SQUATTERS' PREROGATIVES.

WARDEN'S COURT, NOKOMAI. (Before J. N. Wood, Esq.) August 12, 1863. Chamberlain v. Cameron.—This was an action for damage done to a slaughteryard. Austin Chamberlain, being sworn, stated that he bought the slaughteryard, together with a store and stock-in-trade, from Mr. M'Donald, formerly a storekeeper on Moa Creek, and produced a receipt to that effect. On the 4th August, heard that part of the slaughteryard had been cut down by an Australian black in the employ of Mr. Cameron. Afterwards saw the black, who told him that Mr. Cameron had ordered him to do so. The gallows and posts were chopped down, and cut up into firewood. One gate post and the slip rails were also destroyed. His Worship.—What do you consider the amount of damage done ? Mr. Chamberlain.—l think about £SO worth.

His Worship.—But is that the actual amount ? Mr. Chamberlain.—l could not say exactly, but I don't think I could get it replaced under that sum. His Worship.—But you surely do not mean to say that the actual amount of damage done amounts to £SO ? Mr. Chamberlain —I do not think I could get it replaced under. This is an out-of-the-way place, and no conveniences are to be had here handy. I have only a light horse dray, and I hardly think I could manage the long poles necessary for the gallows with it Mr. Cameron.—ln the first place, I wish Mr. Chamberlain to prove that the gallows was cut into firewood. Mr. Chamberlain.—l can prove that it was cut up into three or four feet lengths. Mr. Cameron.—Have you either a slaughtering or business license authorising you to hold the yard according to the regulations of the Goldfields' Act? Mr. Chamberlain.—l have a business license. Mr. Cameron.—But had you one when I had the yards injured ?' Mr. Chamberlain.—No, but I drew one out the same day, and had applied for one a week previously. His Worship. -Such is the case. He applied for one, but as I was at Switzer's on business at the time, he could not get one until I came back. Mr. Cameron.—l think I was justified in doing what I did, as the yard was on my run, and he had no business license. When you bought the store of M' Donald, was his license transferred to you and registered with the Warden ? Mr. Chamberlain. —No, I bought and paid for the store and fixings, &c, as an ordinary trading transaction. Mr. Cameron, in defence, objected to pay the damages demanded, as exorbitant and illegal ; that the power given under the 10th clause of the Goldfields' Act had not been exercised in the case, and therefore that he considered his right to every portion of his run to be unimpaired; that he considered the slaughteryard an obstruction on his run, as it deprived him of the use of the ground it occupied, and that it induced interested parties to bring in cattle, in doing which they might drive away or disturb his sheep or other stock; that it had been abandoned and unoccupied for some time previously; that there was no notice posted about the yard or at the Warden's office, and no advertisement in any paper; therefore that there was nothing to indicate with any certainty that the plaintiff or any other person laid claim to it, or he might have hesitated in allowing any one connected with him to have interfered with it. His Worship, referring to another clause in the Goldfields' Act, objected to its being illegal; and as to the yard being an obstruction on the run, Mr. Cameron might as well object to men mining. Mr. Cameron.—Under clause 10, it states •- that all business sites shall be marked by pegs not less than two inches square, and Chamberlain had not complied with that rule. His Worship thought the four corner-posts of the yard were sufficient pegs. He then read part of clause 11 of the Goldfields' Kegulations. Mr. Cameron. —I thought the yard was unoccupied and abandoned. His Worship.—Then this is your defence, Mr. Cameron. You object as a runholder, and that the plaintiff had no business license ? Mr. Cameron. —Yes; and I further object to the exorbitant damages applied for. His Worship.—That is what I want to arrive at. What do you think you could get the yard repaired for ? Mr. Cameron.—£lo. His Worship.—And how soon could you get it done ? Mr. Cameron—ln about a week. His Worship.—On your former oath, Mr. Chamberlain, have you suffered anything through loss of time or inconvenience ? Mr. Chamberlain.—Yes; we have been obliged to shoot a bullock outside, and dress it on the ground. It made the meat in a great mess. Mr. Cameron.—But the yard was still there ; you might have yarded the cattle. Mr. Chamberlain.—One of the gate-posts is away, and the panels gone. His Worship, with the plaintiff and defendant having adjourned to view the yard, His Worship, on his return, said —I consider the case too difficult to decide at once; therefore, I shall postpone it for a week, during which time, Mr. Cameron, you will repair the damage you have done, and I shall consider what amount Mr. Chambarlain is entitled to through loss of time and inconvenience. I think you have as much underrated the damage as Mr. Chamberlain has overrated it. The Court then adjourned until that day week.