WARDEN'S COURT.—Feb. 4th.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 362, 11 February 1876, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.— Feb. 4th.

(Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden.) Walter Inder and William Guffie v. William Grayson and John Petersen.— 1. This was a complaint that the defendants did, during the latter part of the year 1873, interfere with, and encroach upon, the tail race of complainants, situate at Mount Burster, held under certificate No. 2147, dated 26th January, 1872, by cutting a race across the same, without the sanction of complainants or the authority of the Warden first had and obtained, contrary to the Goldfields Act, 1866, and the rules and regulations made thereunder. 2. That complainants have requested defendants to remove from such interference and encroachment, but defendants have neglected to do so. Mr. Rowlatt for complainants, Mr. Hertslet for defendants. Mr. Hertslet took objection to the complaint being proceeded with, as the action had not been instituted within six months after the commission of the alleged offence, as provided for in the Justices Act for regulating summary proceedings, and quoted clause 106 of the Goldfields Act, 1866. Mr. Rowlatt con tended that the clause was only applicable where no Warden's Court was in existence, but could not be held to be so in the present case, as there was a Warden's Court. Mr. Hertslet said it was clear that there must be some limit as to the time in which actions of this nature could be brought, and the Act referred to gave that limit. If cases like the present could lie dormant for upwards of two years and be then revived, there was no reason, in the absence of all limitation, why proceedings might not be instituted atjthe end of ten, twenty, or fifty years — in fact, an old man might be called upon to answer for some damage done by nim when a boy. After argument the Warden said that there was, in his opinion, a great deal of force and common sense in the objection, but he would allow the case to proceed, reserving the point raised. Another objection was then taken that during the latter part of 1873 there was no race in existence, and the line of race now claimed as the property of complainants was a grant to one Thomas Gogarty, deceased, and that defendants had only been the purchasers of the property from the executors of Gogarty within the last few months, and therefore could not be entitled to bring an action for any trespass upon the rights of Gogarty which had been committed during his lifetime, and which Gogarty, by his own inaction, had condoned. If Gogarty had died, leaving a suit pending, no doubt complainants, as his representatives, might have carried it on, but it w.as not in their power to institute a new suit, such as the present. The Warden agreed to amend the complaint by inserting the name of " Gagarty " in the first paragraph of complaint in lieu of that of " complainants." After further and lengthy argument on both sides the Warden said that, irrespective of the point reserved, he should —even if complainants sustained all the points in the complaints as amended—dismiss the case. Complaint dismissed, with costs, and £2 expenses.