WARDEN'S COURT.—30th Nov.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 197, 6 December 1872, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.—3Oth Nov.

(Before HVW. Robinson Esq., Warden.) Howe and others v. Frater —This was complaint that the defendant, being the holder of a water race at Maerewhenua, he (the defendant) had neglected to cut the same for over twelve months, the prayer of the com pi in t being that the license under which the rac« was held might be decree.! to be forfeited, and the registration of the license cancelled. This 'ase was partially heard at Maerewhenua at the last sitting of the Court, nnd adjourned to this place for the production of Court records. Mr. Rowlatt for complainant, Mr.! Hertslet for defence. The evidence taken at Maerewhenua was read by the Warden, and the plaintiff was also examined. From the evidence it was sought to be established that Frater had not in any way touched the raca which he held under license No. 62, but that the race which he had constructed was held under an entirely different and separate license, and that, therefore was good ground for forfeiture being decreed. For the defence it was urged that, at the time of the purchase at sal j by bailiff under distress warrant the race not cut was pointed out to him as being the Ben Lomond race; It was not denied that there was something very strange in the fact of defendant holding two licenses for two races, starting from the same point andterminating at the same point after runnirg a dis-' tance of 12 miles parallel one with the other.! Admitting, however, that such had beeu the case it was contended that, before the initiation of legal proceedings, the defendant had obtained permission from the Warden to alter the head, and divert the water intended to be carried in the race now sought to have de clared forfeited (No. 62), and that sucti beinsj the case the defendant was in actual re-occu-pation of the right be r ore the action was commencedi and that he had, therefore, resumed his first right to the w=«tcr granted under license 62. The War'.en said that the com'tplainants had, iri his opinion established their case, and that forfeiture would be decreed •so far-as the rights held under license 62 were .concerned. He took uo note of anything which might have been told defendant at the time of his purchasing the property. Sheriffs' sales were well known to be dangerous, and the term caveat emptor applied strongly to them. . It had been made evident to him that the race held under license 62 had not been cut, or even a sod of it turned, and he should, therefore, decree a forfeiture of the right and t e cancellation of the registi-ation of the license. The case was not one which would be met by the infliction of a fine in lieu of forfeiture ; neither did he see, as the work had never been constructed, how compensation could be claimed. Upon being a«ked the question if the alteration a"d diversion lately granted j{ No. 62 race would be affected by the judgment just given, the Warden said that tlie parent rig'it being destroyed the other right must with it. We hear that it is the intention of Mr. Frater to lodge an appeal to the District Court.

Monday December 2nd. Grayson and others v. Andrew White and others. —This was an action to recover the sum of £B6 10s for loss sustained by defendants having washed away a large area of ground held by complainants under a Mining Lease at Ularks. Mr. Hertslet for complainants, Mr. Kowlatt for defendants. It appeared that, previous to the application of complainants for the lease area, defendants were in posession of a certificate which empowered them to cut a tail-race therethrough of certain dimensions. It was sought to be established that the width of the tail-race cut was much greater than that granted, and that, by that means, auriferous ground to the value of £75 had been washed away, while by the extra width of the Tail-race, caused by the unauthorised action of the defendants, would put the complainants to the expense of £ll 10s, for fluming - The evidence for the defence was in direct contradiction to that offered in support of the complaint—the measurements being so perfectly different as. to induce the Warden to decide upon visiting the ground before he could decide between such conflicting evidence. The Warden will visit the ground oruthe llth. Adjourned till that day. Same «v. same.—Complaint that defendants have interfered with the lease area of complainants situate at Clarks, by cutting a head-raoetaerethrough without giving notice.

Tuesday December 3rd. Creighton v. Bromly.—For unlawfully interfering with complainant's tail-race by causing tailing! to be run thereinto. Fined forty shillings and costs. Police v. Francis. —Being in occupation of a business site, without being the holder of a business license. Fined twenty-five shillings and costs. John M/Grath .▼. George Brown, Solomon London, and John Napier.—Unlawfully interfering with the *ogutered tail-race of

defendant. It appeared that a horse, the property of Brown, had been hired to London and met with an accident, which resulted in ; a broken leg. At the request of Brown, the | horse was shot by the police, near the tailrace of complainant, the body was atterwards thrown thereinto—Brown assisting. Complaint being made by the complainant, the carcase was removed at the expense of £2. London, not being on the ground, and there being nothing to connect Napier with the matter, judgment was given for £2 damages against Brown, and eighteen shillings costs. Mr. Bailey for Brown, Mr. Ross for London.