WARDEN'S COURT.—June 28.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 22, 2 July 1869, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.—June 28.

■ (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden,) |L Crei gnton and others v. Extended Eace Company (registered).— mne complaint was, that the defendants Pj»re removing earth from plaintiffs' claim on Surface Hill, and constructing" a dam in such a manner as to interfere •Mi their workings by backing water pa their claim. Complainants asked mat the defendants should be ordered jo cease such interference. Mr Eoss, »Y permission of the Court, conducted the case for the plaintiffs. Mr Stuart, a director of the Company, appeared top the defence. It appeared by the evidence for the complainants that on Saturday, the 12th. of June, plaintiffs, marked out a claim L tor three men, and on the Monday following, began to.work upon it.. Directly Batter marking out they informed the P defendants, who were working at their I race not far away. There was nothing Ito indicate that the ground was pref occupied; but shortly after the I claim was marked out, two of the defendants began to clear ground for the !; construction of a dam bank. The [.; plaintiffs did not object, as they did not 'j at the time consider-that the dam | would so far encroach upon their claim £asto do them serious injury. Subse- * quently, they found that it was inf tended so to construct the dam as to l cover a great part of their claim with j water. An attempt was made at a \ compromise, but as no agreement could be arrived at, the case had to come into , | Court. . i [| The defendants' case was, that they ' pield a'grant for the dam, dated 12th ! but/it was admitted that they had not commenced work upon it until the 12th June. It came out in crossexamination thats at the. time of applying for the dam, the defendants had marked it about forty yards lower down the gully than where they were now constructing it, and that they had only ; marked it by three pegs, to indicate the Kine of the proposed dam bank. The Warden suggested a compromise, f and adjourned the case for an hour to. afford the parties an opportunity. On resuming, it was stated that no 1 1 terms could be arrived at. *■* In- giving judgment, the "Warden >'stated that he "held it to be proved:. That the plaintiffs had marked out their on June 24th, and before the defendants had begun to construct their dam ; that the defendants had not built.

their dain as originally marked and applied for, but farther up the. gully ; they had not, when applying for the dam, marked it. out in the way intended by the Regulations, there being only the. line of the embankment marked.out, and nothing to indicate to any miner that the water would reach to such or such a point; that they had not begun the construction within the seven days laid down by the Regula-tions-—but this was open to some question as to its bearing on the present case, because of the phrase, "during a period when sufficient water is available," sec. 6, reg. xi. The Court therefore ordered that the defendants cease

removing earth from plaintiffs' claim, and constructing their dam so as to encroach upon complainants' claim. Defendants to pay costs, 155., and 50s. expenses.