WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 267, 18 April 1874, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., Warden.) Tbidat, Apbil 17.

Christian and Nicholas v. W. Guffie, Thomas and others.—Damages £IBO 10s./ for injury to a water race by discharging tailings, &c, into it.. Mr. C. jF. Roberts for complainants; Mr. G.F. Rowlatt for defendants. Mr. Rowlatt took preliminary objections to the informality of the complaint. That description and abode- of parties to the suit had : not been given; that such omissions were fatal and could not be amended, as a complaint was. not a proceeding of the Court but of the com; plairiants. The summons was the first proceeding of the Court in. such cases. The Court agreed with Mr. Rowlatt's argument that the complaint could not be amended, nor heard without amendment. Case struck out for informality of the complaint, but no costs allowed. W. Guffie, G. Thomas, and others v. Christian, Nicholas, and Casper.—Trespassing upon an area applied for and marked off under the Mining Lease Regulations between 28th March and 2nd

April. Mr. Rowlatt for complainants, Mr. Roberts for defendants. The witnesses for the complainants prove'd the marking off the area of ten acres on the 27th March last, and advertising their application, • as well as lodging it in the Warden's office on the 28th ult. Also as to the size of their pegs and trenches, according to the regulations. They observed defendants working on 28th March within the area pegged off, and again on the 2nd April, insl. For the defence, it was.urged that the defendantshad been working the same ground as their own claim since December, 1873. Had had a tail race within the ground applied for by G-uffie and party for two years past. Were not aware Guffie had applied for or pegged off the ground on the 27th of March. That they (defendants) wereinNasebyon the 27th, and returned to work on the 28th of March. Were quite innocent of encroaching* on anybody's ground ; and, since the injunc-* tion had been served, had ceased working within complainants' pegs, beyond washing up the bottom of their old claim, marked off in December last. Since they had received the summons they had examined complainants' pegs and trenches,, and believed three of the pegs were less than the dimensions required by the regulations, and also that the trenches wereshorter than they should be by the rules.. The Court, without any summing up beyond remarking that the complaint was praying for a penalty to be inflicted on defendants for encroachment and trespass, said the complaint is not proved. Case dismissed.