DISTRICT COURT.—May 13.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 68, 20 May 1870, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.—May 13.

{Before his Honor "Wilson .Gray, Judge.)

Creighton (Appellant), Campbell and Party (.Respondents).— This Case was heard on YV ednesday last; when judgment was reserved, 'in order that

t:e Judge might have an opportunity 4of conferring with the Warden as to the grounds upon which he had based -his judgment, when the case was heard before him in the Court below. r His Honor, in delivering judgment, now state,d that he had ascertained from t ie Warden that his judgment had been based upon the fact of an actual aban- ~ donment. having been established. His

: lienor said that he looked upon tl/e > case as brought before him rather in the light of a new trial before a new jury tban as an appeal upon facts. New evidence "had been advanced which was not brought forward on the former occasion, and which might have led the Warden to a different judgment. In the. latest Regulations, l sec. 2 of reg. xxv., declaring what should be con-

sidered abandonment, was, he had no doubt, ultr.a vires,and inconsistent with sec. cxv. of the Goldfields Act, 1866, .which implied that there could be no forfeiture without a judicial proceeding. His Honor held, therefore, that unless a positive intentional abandonment was

proved it would be his duty to set aside the decision of the Court below. He . "would not go so far as to say that there could not be an' actual abandonment without an intentional abandonment, or that a man fraudulently intending to keep land. under his hand without

occupying it would be entitled to the benefit 'of tMa construction, although someTictorian judgments went a long wayin this direction. He was not called upon to express an opinion on the merits of the case, as regarded what should have been the decision on a case for a decree of forfeiture. All he could say was that he must hold that there had been no abandonment, unless s he were willing to believe that the wit- * nesses for the appellant, who had sworn that they had been engaged in preparing to work.the ground in dispute, had been guilty of \vilful perjury. This he saw no reason to do, and must, therefore, reverse the decision of the Court below, and order respondents to withdraw from the ground in. question.