WARDEN'S COURT.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume V, Issue 292, 3 October 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Sbptembeb 25TH.

(Before H. A, Stratford, Esq., Warden.) Theodor Meinert and Frederick King v. John Hardacre. —-Encroachment- at Duncan s Gully, Kyeburn Diggings, on an ordinary claim. Mr. Eowlatt for complainants, Mr. Bailey for defendants. All witnesses being ordered to leave the Court, at Mr. Bailey's request, who also objected to both complainants remaining in Court if both were to be witnessess, °MV Kowlatt quoted from lioscoe, in support of both being allowed to remain, and the Warden supported his views, quoting from Judge Johnstone, page 116 clause 367. Frederick King was the principal witness for the complaint, and, as soon as he had been cross-examined, Mr. Bailey moved the Court to adjourn to the ground. On the ground at 3 pan., the Court was oponi-d, and Frederick"King examined as to marks, pegs, &e. Theodor Meinert was then examined, also William and Jame3 Smith, and Johu Stewart. After the examination of. .James Smith, Mr. Bailey remarked, " We admit that comSlainants marked off the claim, it is not ispufced by us, but we call it jumping." In opening his defence, he added that, his client, Hardacre, had been a friend to complainants when they were in a state of poverty, and they had proved their gratitude by jumping his ground." John Hardacre, George Howe, Arthur Sharpy, aud Terence Sharkey were examined as - to- Hardacre's original pegs, and to the ground he was supposed "to have possessed before complainants came to the district. The case was then adjourned to the Court House, Naseby. On the 26th John Hardacre, Terence Shar- <*» key, George Howe, Arthur Sharkey, and V James Meikle were heard for the defence, and the Warden summed us as follows : The facts are, Hardacre took Meinert and King into his confidence, and provided them with work in March last, and had been working with them from then until sometime in August. He maraed off four claims with two miners* rights, and did not mark properly—all the evidence tending to this direction. It was a sharp trick of King and Meinert to mark of properly (which is admitted on the other side); but, as the ground had aever been marked before, they must be held to have possession, and consequently the complaint is valid—that defendant had encroached ou it, but his trespass had been one not wilfully done, ife thought he was on his own ground ; and, considering all the cireumatances of the case, that he had been working with complainants m the same ground so many months, only nominal damages will be allowed. It appears Hardacre trespassed on the 21st September of this year, and the Warden's Court is therefore only asked to asse33 damages for a tresspass of one day, or & fw °mt « le judgment therefore is nat Ihe defendant remove from tho claim he has encroached upon, and comV? UI - ltS ? re aut ' l(J " se d to remove from oil their claim, with proper care, the tools and articles of defendaut, if any there. Damages allowed. 10s., with Court costs, and expenses £ll ss.