WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 273, 29 May 1874, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

Fbiday, May 22nd. S ,(Bof6re ,H. A. Stratford, Esq., Warden.) ■ William Moore v. the Homeward , v ,„ Bound Company.— having complied with an order contained in a vcr-' ' " diet in the Warden's Court of Nnsoby on the 16th April, 1873, having failed to work out Moore's residence aiea within twelve months, as in duty bound hy 1 lie order. The Homeward Bound Company was.represented by Mr. J. Stewart, and conducted by Mr. W. L. Bailey. Mr. G. F. Ilowlatt appeared for William Moore. Mr. Bailey addressed the Court, applying on behalf of the Homeward Bound Company for. six months extension of time to work out the residence area in question, andexamincd James Stewart to prove that liis clients had been mining in connection the residence area during the past twelve months whenever water had 1 been available. Under cross-exami-nation Stewart-admitted that a portion of the school reserve had been worked when bringing up the lailruce, some portions of i a road leading to the Presbyterian Church, and a part of one Forrester's ground (which had bceu purchased by the company), but only one-third or thereabouts i of Moore's residence area. The witness contended that the several outside areas had been so worked to enable the company to sluice out Moore's area to greater advantage. This closed the case for the applicants. Mr. Eowlatf then addressed the Court on behalf of Mr. W. Moore, and examined him on oath to prove that the Homeward Bound Company had not obeyed the order of the Court given on 16th April, 1873, that it'should diligently and continually work out Moore's'residence area until finished. He advanced as a ' proof of unreasonable delay, that a por- i ' ■ tion of the school reserve, the road, and Forrester's area' were unnecessary works j in connection with his ground, and that the company had been employing itself with outside work, leaving his area to the last. The Warden visited the ground in company with ihe disputants; and, oh re- , turning to'the Court, summed up' as 1 follows :—That, by iho evidence, the Horiu?wavd B.ound Company had so far complied with the verdict as to have paid the sum of £36 10s for the use of the ground,' but that, in regard to Forrester's ground especially, they had notuscd the diligence they"should have clone, according to the , order of the Cqurt in 1873. There bringing up a tail race through the sehool re- ; serve appears to have been necessary ■works, but it was to suit their own conve-nience-(against the order, and to the dis- . advantage of-Moore) that they worked ground between the Church and the residence area, and although perhaps the jury, in allowing Moore £36 10s. for temporary inconveniences, may have anticipated that he would not receive the ground again foreighteen months, nevertheless the company were bound in honor, by the tenor of the order, to Iry to re-deliver in twelve months. Moore had proved by his evidence that day that they have not so • tried, as they ha no right to consider the working of Forrester's ground as proper employment of their time ; and, as he refiresents, that if he can re-possess the and in September it will be advantageous to him for garden purposes. Tho Homeward Bound Company, for their neglect, cannot expect the six months they ask for, and itis hereby ordered'that the extension of time for working out Moore's resi- .. donee area shall be for five months from ," 16th April, 1874—applicants to pay costs hearing, order to William Moore, 10s. expenses, and half professional fee, 10s. 6d.