WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume IV, Issue 216, 18 April 1873, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuesday, April 15. (Before H. W. Ilobinson, Esq.., Warden.) Guffie and others v. White and others. This complaint, the hearing of which had been adjourned sine die from the 24th February, the Warden now allowed to be withdraw without costs. Wednesday, April 16. M'lntosh and others v. William Moore. The complaint in this case (which was heard before four assessors) set forth that the defendant had refused to allow the complainants to enter and mine on his residence area, although the said residence area had been proved to be auriferous. Wherefore, the complainants asked for ail order of the Court to allow them to work the defendant's residence area, upon payment of compensation to be estimated by the Court. Mr. Bailey appeared for the complainants, and Mr. Cowlafct for the defendant. The Warden, before proceeding with the case, suggested that, as there was a second case for hearing similar to the present one, the same assessors should try both cases; and some discussion took place as to whether the assessors were entitled to' extra payment for trying more than

i one case on tlie same day. It was ultimately ' decided, by consent of botli parties, that one set o£ assessors should try tlie two cases, and thxt the assessors should receive separate payment for the next case. The material part 3 of the complaint were not denied by the defendant who merely pleaded that sufficient compensation had not been offered to him. It appeared, f rom a letter read to the Court, that an offer had been made by the complainants to pay £35 for ail absolute transfer of" the defendant's residence area to the complainants, which, the defendant's counsel pointed out, was rr,o :e than the complainants were entitled to get in any event. It was urged that the site, after the ground had been worked, still remained the property of the defendant. The Warden au I assessors visited the ground, and an arrangement was afterwards arrived at between the parties that a portion of the ground near the defendant's house should be first worked, and that the defendant should then remove his house on to the part worked; that compensation should be paid for the loss of all. sod buildings on the ground and fences; and that the defendant should be at liberty to remove the surface soil as the work proceeded. The assessors, af •er again visiting the ground, allowed £36 liis. compensation, and the Warden decided that each party should pay their own costs. M'lntosh and others v. Richard Moore. 1 This complaint was precisely similar to the above. Mr. Bailey for the complainants, and Mr. Ilowlatt for the defend ant. After the assessors had viewed the ground, Mr. I\owlatt pleaded '' that the area mentioned in the complaint now is, and was (prior to the laying of the complaint, and before any tender of compensation) the property of the defendant as a mining claim." The Warden remarked that this was a plea in law, and would probably, if substantiated, overthrow the case for the complainants. Mr. Bailey argued that, as the complainants had obtained the consent of the defendant to prospect the ground (which was admitted), that that consent was tantamount to an order from a Warden to prospect (under sec. 4, Keg. xx.), and that such an order would give the complainants a title to the ground which would prevent the owner of the. residence area from pegging it out as a mining claim for himself, until the prospectors had determined whether or not to apply for the ground as a claim. . Mr. Eowlatt replied that the defendant in the present case had as much right to peg out his own residence area as a mining claim as any other holder of a miner's right had to peg out a claim on Crown lands within- a Goldiield. That neither the,defendant's consent to the prospecting, no.saf Warden's order to prospect, could give the complainants, or other parties in the- complainants' position, any priority of right to the ground as a mining claim until a complaint asking for the ground had been laid. Counsel instanced the case of a miner prospecting Crown lands on a Goldiield, finding payable gold, and neglect-' ing to peg out a claim; and contended that any other person might acquire a claim on the very ground which had been prospected, if he was the tirst to peg it. . The Warden, after some deliberation, sustained the plea, and directed the assessors to dismiss the complaint, which they accordingly did, with 10s. expenses and 21s. professional costs.