WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume II, Issue 125, 21 July 1871, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden.)

Thursday, 13th July. Morrison v. B. T. George and others, Union Church Trustees. —Mr. Smythies for the complainant. The complaint in this case was that the defendants were in possession of a certain area held under a certificate for residence or cultivation, and that the conditions under which the said certificate was held had not been fulfilled, the ground never having been fenced; that the certificate was obtained by misrepresentation; that the said piece of ground was not, nor ever had been, held for the purpose of residence or cultivation ; that complainant desires to occupy part of the said ground for business purposes under his business license, and therefore prays that the said certificate may be declared forfeit. —Mr. B.uley, who appeared for the defence, pleaded: That it was not necessary to fence under-the Regulations iu force when the certificate was issued; that there had been no misrepresentation ; that the ground was held for a public purpose.—The Warden said that, as regarded the first and second clauses of the complaint, it had been shown that the defendants were under no obligation to fence, and it had not been shown that there had been misrepresentation. As regarded the third clause, it was evident that the land had not been occupied for residence or cultivation in the ordinary way. The prayer of the complainant was that the certificate be declared forfeited. The power to cancel a certificate, which was what apparently was desired to be done, was conferred under section 14 Regulation xv, Rules and Regulations, 1864, in case of misrepresentation, or of any prescribed conditions not having been complied with. Iu this instance there had been no misrepresentation, and the conditions did not appear to have been contravened. The certificate plainly said that the defendants were to have a residence area of half an acre for the Union Church and School, and for that purpose only had they held and occupied it. If anyone was m the wrong it was not with them, and they were not therefore to be visited with forfeiture. Case dismissed. Rosevear v. M'Donald and Thoneman. —The information in this case stated that, the defendant M'Donald had sold to the complainant one-eighth share in the mining claims at Hamilton held by the Perseverence Company, for the sum of £224; that M'Donald had mortgaged the property to E. Barber for the sum of £SO ; that Barber had mortgaged the one-eighth in part of the property, together with two other rights in the same property, to Thoneman for £250 ; and the complainant prayed that defendant M'Donald might be ordered to transfer to complainant one-eighth of the property left with E. Barber, and that Thoneman might be ordered to transfer to complainant the one-eighth of the property mortgaged by M'Doaald, upon payment to him of £SO and interest—Mr. Smythies appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Bailey appeared for the defendant M'Donald. Defendant Thoneman did not appear.—Mr. Smythies opened the case, which showed some very complicated transactions between the parties, and ultimately it was agreed that

M'Donald should cause i he share to be transferred to the complainant so soon as letters of administration had been taken out by Mrs. Barber to her husband, who had lately died, and upon this the case was withdrawn. Rowse v. Barber.—This was a similar case, in which another eighth share vvhich had been mortgaged to Thoneman was sought to be redeemed, and it was agreed that Mrs. Barber should transfer the eighth, to complainant so soon as she had taken out letters of administration, upon payment by him of all money (amounting to £Q6) due from him to Barber's estate. Upon which agreement the case was withdrawn.

Monday, 17th July. Crotty and M'G-rath v. John Creigh-

ton. —This case was heard before assessors.—Mr. Ross for complainants, Mr. Hertslet for defendants. —The complaint was that defendant claims a portion of ground known as Creighton's garden; that complainants have included a portion of said garden in their mining claim, having found the same to be auriferous ; that complainants got permission from defendants to prospect the ground; that the ground was marked out on the 3rd July ; the prayer being that the defendant forfeit to complainants the portion of said ground marked out by them for mining purposes. —Mr. Hertslet being called upon to plead, submitted that there was no case to answer, as the complaint disclosed no cause of action. With regard to the prayer for forfeiture, the defendant had parted with his interest in the portion of ground referred to before the commencement of these proceedings.—After a lengthened argument the Warden ruled that there was no case for the Court to hear, and nonsuited the complainants.