WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 110, 7 April 1871, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Thursday, ; ,6nr Apr;^. (Before H, W. Robinson, 15sq., Warden.) Prater arid Others J. Gugarty and Others.—The complaint in this case was that the defendants, on or about the 19th January,.unlawfully obtained a certificate of <resistwtioii for a tail race .numbered 8929, without having previously (complied with the provisions of «ee. I !!eg. xiii., Otago (loldfieldw Uules and Regulations, by giving notice to the conTplairaiits—whose interests are.''seriously'affected by the said tail* rap#,—in the prescribed form,—Mr, Bolierts for complainants, Mr. !!. 0. Hertslet for defendants. The complaint was admitted, with the omission of the word " unlawfully but it was contended that no such notice as was stated in the complaint to be necessary was required by the section of the r<v gula/fcion referred to. —The following is the judgment of the Warden: He said that'iri TiisOpinion sec:'l-reg. xiii. was to be read in connection with sec. 1 of reg. xii.V'atid that'the provisions of sec. 1 of reg. xii. were to he held as imperative! sq far as applicable to tail races. A. special condition of application for tail races wa« provided, in which, for instance, there wa.s nothing said about the quantity of. water to be diverted. The use of .the word notice in the singulat?„was of no consequence, i'or jfthat Werfe -heM to limit the notice to one,,to fre ro ;p6Stedy :! 'the !; Warden would get nonel i)'oJ;'ipe to be to any by the dWereion: of such> water. Now, the difference betvveen a tail race and a &]&ciaWjf that one had" a fi'gWlio 1 Wfert''w'Afer attaching to it, and - the other was merely an eaaemebib/iconiiected, indeed, with such a right, but not part of it. The object appeared tfr fliai t0 4Vdid'the creation of conflicting rights-to water. The owner of 1 a/'tail-race "acquired, apparently, a right,to discharge tailings and water on of his race, but he'could only exercise this;.right so as not to interfere with equal I'ights.' If He did mischief, he was- (liable to an action for damage. The Warden did' notion aider, there T fore, that the applicant;for a tail race was by the strict reading of sec. I reg. 12, to give noticW to any person whose interests might be affected by the discharge of and tailinjrs from his tail race. Tailings were not tioned in sec. 1 of reg. 12 or sec. 1 of reg. xiii.. at all, Case dismissed. costs, 21s. expenses. The 'v: Guffic nuid Others.--Similar complaint. • Case' withdrawn, with 19s. cohlr and 21h. expenses. jfarrpei; V. ; was , a complaint that' the defendant, entered ipto ft contract with the com-

■r > 111 —- plainant relative, to the", jng of the works of the' Mount Company, had failed to fulfil .the terms of such contract, whereby complainant had suffered damage, and praying that' the Court would award such amount of damage as might be fair andequitable. The evidence in this case was of the liiost conflicting character,-- and after a very lengthened hearing the case, .was dismissed,; - r . . „