HAMILTON.—May 13.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 272, 22 May 1874, Page 3

HAMILTON.—May 13.

. Warden's Couet. (Before H. A. Stratford, Esq., Warden.) Wm. Edmonds v. Emma Barber.— Encroachment upon a right of way. This case had been adjourned from the 7th April for judgment. The following is the Warden's summing up : —After referring to the facts of the case, which have already appeared in print, the Warden said : As he intimated on the day of hearing, there were two important law points requiring consideration, which have had his atten" fcion since ; for, if it could have been done in equity, he should have felt disposed to have given a judgment in favor of complainant. The first poinb is whether complainant had any right in law to the land. The provisions of section 5, Goldfields Act, 1866; in regard to business sites are, that persons holding business licenses are entitled only to certain areas on Crown lands on the Goldficlds. Again, sections 2 and 3 of Regulation 19, Goldfields Rules, distinctly guide the applicants how to act to obfain business sites/ and'section 4> explains who alone can hold business sites. In complainant's case he did not obtain a registration of transfer from Joseph Bremner, and consequently, on account of this omission, at would have been necessary by the Regulations for hini\to have the site under sections 2 and 3, Regulation 19, to have become lawful possessor of the ground; also,, to have at the same time tak.en out abusi-

ness license; whereas, he has never yet pegged the ground at all, nor did he take out a business liccnse-uDtil the 7th October, 1873, and even then did not peg off the ground. This omission on his part clearly in law dispossesses complainent of any claim to the ground. The second point is of itself sufficient to enable the Court to decide, but-the first point has been explained that complainant (who has not altogether been well treated) may understand, and rectify his orvission in regard to the remainder of,the area bought from Joseph Bremnqr. '-Itsappears that the area in question has .in law been; abandoned sinse Joseph'Bremner left. It has been in fact waste lands of the Crown, and that the Crown took possession! through its agent (Mrs. Barber), of the disputed land by placing a Government building on it on the 7th October, 1873. Mrs. Barber, though a willing agent, has no claim either to the land or the building and was only a mouthpiece for the Warden, or rather his Honor the Snperinten- | dent of Otago and the Provincial Executive. She is, therefore, not the defendant, and on these grounds the complainant is nonsuited. Extended Claims.—C. Dyke, Joseph Hore, Thomas Greigson,. and W. Churn- ! side. i Races.—C. Dyke and Thomas ! G-ieigsoD. I - Head Eace.—T. Greigson. i ' Police v. Cunningham.-—For conduct- ! mg a business on Ihe Gofdfields without | a license. Pined £1 10s';, and Court costs i BS. - /;. / " ■ .