WARDEN'S COURT.—22nd April.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 164, 26 April 1872, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.—22nd April.

(Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden, and Assessors.) Christian Archer e. Douglas and party; —This was an action to recover the sum of £llO, upon a contract for the sale of onesixth share in mining property at Kyeburn, being a rehearing of the, case re-

ported in a former issue. Mr. Smythies. appeared for the plaintiif, and Mr. Bailey for the defendant.—ln opening the case, Mr. Smythies informed the Assessors that at the former trial the plaintiff had sworn that, in the early part of 1869, he had sold to the defendants his sixth share in their claim and races for £llO, and that this evidence had been corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses, to the effect that several of the defendants had often admitted the purchase, and had spoken of the money due to the plaintiff and of their inability to pay. Also, that it. was admitted by the defendants at that trial that they had washed up from time to time since the purchase and had offered the plaintiff no part of the gold, nor delivered any account that they had purchased another share; had bought timber, &c, from time to time, and in other ways dealt with the property without consulting the plaintiff. The share stood upon the certificate in the name of David Archer, a brother of plaintiff, who had transferred to the plaintiff, but neither had they in any way recognised David as a shareholder since the purchase. That the defendants, one and all, except Brookes (who was only a nominal partner), denied the purchase and the evidence of the witnesses who had given evidence of the defendants' admissions, and the Warden, not being satisfied with the proof given of the sale, had given judgment for the defendants. He was now prepared with additional evidence, which he thought would satisfy the Court that the plaintiff at that trial had sworn the truth, and that the denial of the defendants was false.—Christian Archer* the plaintiff, then gave similar evidence to what he swore at the last trial, and Richard Cooke and James Newsome, who gave evidence before to the effect that some of the defendants had admitted the purchase and had stated how much was owing to the plaintiff, repeated that testimony, and that, as they saidy in the face of the denial of the defendants. These witnesses were now supported by John Cooke, William Shaw, Robert Slorach, George Carlyle, and William Williamson, who severally swore to similar admissions made to them by some of the defendants; and, particularly, Shaw and Slorach stated that, in treating for the purchase of shares in the claim, the defendants had stated Archer's money to be a debt due, and to be paid by the shareholders; and Carlyle, upon lending money to purchase Jones's share in the concern, had also been told of the plaintiff's claim.—On the part of the defence, Mr. Bailey raised some technical objections to the plaintiff's title to claim the money, which were overruled by the Warden; and then called John Hardacre, Richard Vercoe, and Edward Douglas* defendants, and Harvey (who represented Brookes in the claim), who denied everything which had been stated on behalf of the plaintiff.—Joe Martin, an Austrian! and mate with Hardacre, denied a statement made by JSewsome and John Cooke; and Kinross, Alex. Macintosh, George Hare, and Arthur Starke deposed to plaintiff having attended a meeting of race owners since the alleged sale, upon an occasion when it was expected the Government would buy up the races, and then he (the plaintiff) claimed to have an interest in the defendants' claim.—Each of the agents then addressed the Court on behalf of their respective clients, and the Warden summed up the case. The Court was then cleared for the Assessors to consider their verdict. After an hour's deliberation, a verdict was given for the plaintiff, against Douglas, Hardacre, and Vercoe, for the amount claimed; and in favor of the defendant Brookes, upon the ground that he had been no party to the purchase.—The case throughout created great interest, the Court being crowded, and several- persons were unable to get in. The case occupied the Court more than eleven hours.