HAMILTON.—July 18.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume VII, Issue 385, 28 July 1876, Page 3

HAMILTON.—JuIy 18.

Warden's Coubt. (Before H. "W". Ttobinson, Esq., Warden.) . Grants. —W. Kdiuonds, extended claim; Ah Yun, extended claim ; A. L.Nicholas, extended chum ; llerlihy and others, tail race; W. 11. Udy, residence area ; Jory and Slowe, two extensions of head race JN'o. 35(30.

Special Claim. The application of James Herliby and others for special claim of twenty acres Lear Shepherd's Hut, jfhd the objection of Nicholas and party to the same, was considered. John M'Donakl, one of the applicants, appealed: for Herliby and Company, and Mr. Bailey for the objectors, who are known as the Cornish Company. L appears that the Cornish Company were themselves holders of a spec/ill claim of twelve acres, and that, for the working of it, they had bccu for eighteen months 'bringing up a tail race, through blues'onc rock, and they calchh'tcd llint; i would Jain another year to reach the claim. Ii was contended thai, if the pnscm application were, granted, it would iincriere wii U.ilic work-.-ings of the objcciors. T'fans were put in On bo.l< >ide>- and the Warden —who had lust month vi>iied thegt-uiind —after much argument, cUcidid to lecimuucud a grant oT fifteen acres lo tin: applicanls, to incline chum of jsi:; ac.cs alreacy held hy them urn ler the Herniations, with reservation of right fot Cornish Company to construct, if ncecssa.y, and with the approval of tho Warden, a second tail race, to pass lhroti;,it ti is claim—the northern peg of tho extended claim adjoining the J sj ceial claim of the' Cornish Company to betaken in the mh vcy as the im>x>. northerly point of the .special claim for'Herliliy and Company. Withdrawn. W. Creary, extended claim. , . Surrender for Cancellation.—A. L. Nicholas, certificate INo. 7059, dated 15vh March, 1876, for extended claim.

HYDE. —July 19. Resident Magistbate's Couut. (Before 11. W. Robinson, Esq., R.IvL) Halley r. Flamank. Claim for £9 wages. Tho circumstauces of this case were, that the defendant, who is the occupant of some land on the block near Hyde, had a claim against his uextneighbor, Mr. James Heaoy, for contribution to jiarty-fencing. It not being convenient, for Heany to p-uy the money, Mr. Finmark agreed to allow hirn to work some of it out in some other fencing on another portion of his land. Heancy asked if lie might bring his mate (liallcy), and Flamank consented. The work being done, Halley demanded payment from Fl.'inank, who referred him to Heaney. Heaney refused to pay him; and hence the present action. The Court held ilie defendant was liable, as he had been a consenting party to Halley's working on his laud, and had not warned him that he must look to Heancy for payment. Judgment for £9, and £2 costs. Connolly r. M'Dermid.—Claim, £2 7s. 103. No proof of service. New summon! to issue.

Waedkn'b Coant. (Beior# H. W, Robinson, Esq., Warden.) Grants. M'Aulay and another, tai race and extended claim ; William Annett, residence area ; Engloson and others, protection; Petersen and othars, tail race.