WARDEN'S COURT, COLLINGWOOD.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XV, Issue 80, 3 April 1880, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, COLLINGWOOD.

[Before A. Le Grand Campbell, Esq., and four Assessors.] Thursday, April 1. Norhy and others v. Byrne and others. Mr Bunny appeared for the complainants, and" Messrs Guinness and Pitt for defendants. The following were sworn as Assessors : — Thomas Adams (foreman), William Willicombe, John Herd, and Hugh Cottier. Mr Bunny, in opening the case, stated that the plaintiffs called upon the defendants to show cause why all certificates granted by the Warden giving them possession of a certain claim at Gridiron Creek should not be cancelled, on the ground that they were obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. He thought he would have no difficulty in proving the case to the satisfaction of the Assessors. The grounds upon which he relied were as follows : — 1. That the defendants have wilfully misrepresented certain facts in their application to the Warden for a prospecting area by stating that they had on the 4th July, 1879, pegged out the claim, whereas they well knew that the claim had never been pegged out. 2. That Byrne, one of the defendants, had afterwards stated on cross-examination that the claim was pegged out by a man named Perry, which was untrue. He submitted that if these facts were true the certificate must be cancelled. The following witnesses were then called for the plaintiffs :— John Norhy, Robert Codrington Parker, Arthur Carkeek, John Hewitt, and Robert Perry, and deposed to the facts above stated. On the conclusion of the plaintiff's case, Mr Guineas moved for a nonsuit on the following grounds, and urged the application with considerable force ;-»

1. That the complainants had failed to prove that, on the 29th August, 1879, when the application was made for a prospecting area, tbat false representation was made by Byrne, which caused the Warden to grant the certificate. 2. That tbo action was improperly brought in the Warden's Court and before Assessors. It aiight have been simply an application to the Warden in bis judicial capacity. 3. That the effect of the certificate had passed owing to the fact that a certificate for a prospecting claim had been granted, and therefore the prospecting area had ended. Mr Bunuy having replied, the Warden decided not t<? withdraw the case, and refused a noll3Uifc. The defendants then called James Eyrnn, who stated how he had obtained the certificate which he bad held ever since. This closed the case for (he defendants. Mr Pitt then addressed the Assessors on behalf of the defendants, asking them to put aside all technical objections. They jwould Bee from the evidence which o£ the two parties had complied with the Act. He impressed upon them that there had been no misrepresentation. Mr Bunny replied iv an able apetcbj stating tbe facts relied upon by the plaintiffs, viz , that there had been gross misrepresentation by the defendants iv stating in their application that they' had pegged out a claim, whereas they had never been ou the ground to do so. Byrne had falsely stated tbat Perry had pagged out the claim, whereas such was not the case, and Byrne well knew .that the claim had nob been pegged out. Ho concluded by asking them to accept the words of bis learned friends and " throw aside all technicalties " and he felt assured that the evidence would lead them to flud that bis clients had -pegged out under Miners' Rights, and had held possession ever since. Such a holding 1 must strike the mind of every miv( r as a sound one. The Warden then charged the Assessors, who retired, and after an absence of balf-an-hour, found for the defendants with costs £43 15s. I