Warden's Court.

Te Aroha News, Volume XIV, Issue 2084, 12 March 1898, Page 2

Warden's Court.

FRIDAY, 11th MARCH, 1898. (Before R. S, Bush, Esq.) Andrew Allen, application for Rua kaka L.H. Objected to by C R. Farquharson on the ground that applicant had not sufficiently described the land, that the corner pegs were not properly placed, and that the ground in question was not the Ruakaka L.H Mr Mueller for the applicant, and Mr O’Meagher for the objector. The applicant being called deposed that he went down to the Court to apply for what he believed was a vacant piece of ground, formerly applied for, under the name Ruakaka L.H. The Registrar told him the ground was held by Mr Robson. Applicant said he would lay a plaint against him for non-working. The Registrar afterwards told him he (the Registrar) had made a mistake, and that the ground was Mr Lamb's. Ap plicant was about to get tbe necessary papers male out, when the Registrar again informed him that he ; had made a mistake, as he had now discovered that the ground in question was unoccupied, having been abandoned many years ago. Witness,then made out a formal application, thlfllgistrar telling him it was unnecessary tosetforth that it was formerly granted under the name of Ruakaka L.H. Cross-exam-ined by Mr O’Meaghar : The pegging was done by Clem Oornes, and was done peg and peg with the old Ruakaka pegs, and comprised the exact area of the old Ruakaka holding. He knew the Ruakaka lines as well as he knew the streets of the town.

Clement A. Cornes deposed to the pegging, on the 2Srd February, and that he took Allen round all the boundaries, showing him the new pegs alongside the old ones. There might be 8 or 9 pegs put in, and they were all there as late as yesterday. Mr O’Meagher, for the objector, proposed to call evidence to show that on the 6th inst., Messrs Farquharson and Robson went over the ground and could only find 3 or 4 new pegs. There could not be more than about 5 acres embraced within the pegs they saw. The result of their inspection led them to the conclusion that the Ruakaka ' ground had not been pegged, and on the 7th Mr Farquharson lodged an application for that piece of (ground. There was no intention of jumping, as had Mr Farquharson known that Allen had pegged out the land, he would never have interfered ; but he (Mr O’Meagher submitted that the land had not been properly pegged so as to include the old Ruakaka L.H. exactly. C. R. Farquharson, deposed, that in company with Messrs Gotz, Robson, and F. Pavitt, junr. He had gone over the ground as they had hoard all the pegs were not in. They went to the north-east corner but could find no peg, nor at the south-east corner and other points. They put in fresh pegs, and concluding it was fresh ground, applied for it. Cross-examined by Mr Mueller: It was Mr Gotz who proposed they should visit the ground. Mr Griffith told witness that one of the pegs was missing, which was what led them to make the visit. Could not say exactly who the shareholders were. Those who went over the ground with him wete interested, and probably Mr Griffith would get a share, but he could not say as he was not arranging the shares. Residence Site Applications. H F. Gotz applied for a residence site in block 32. The application was adjourned owing to applicant having met with an accident,, and being unable to appear. Robert Mackie, application for residence site, block 32. The registrar pointed out that applicant’s wife and family already held several sections. Mr Gilchrist (for applicant) urged that applicant himself did not hold one. His Worship thought he could ndt grant any section to a man whose wife already held one. Mr Gilchrist asked that this application be adjourned with the previous one (Mr Gotz’s) as they were both somewhat connected. The whole question could then be dealt with at the same time. His Worship agreed, and both applications worn adjourned. Anna Mary) Harris. Application for exchange of title-. Gbjeoted to by W. A. Roberts. Mr Forritt appeared for applicant and Mr Moss for objector. Harris v Roberts.—Claim for reentering half section for non-payment of rent. Same counsel appeared for both parties. *lt was agreed that the latter case should be taken first, as His Worship’s decision would have an important bearing oh the former. Mr Moss at the outset urged that the plaint should be dismissed, as it was imperfectly drawn. Plaintiff was a married woman and should have been described as such, as it was only by virtue of her separate estate that blio could sue or be sued, in accordance with “ The M irried Women’s Property Act.’’ Mr Porrit contended that Mrs Harris was the, licensee, and that according to the Mining l Apf any person over 14 who held a miner's right, could take Evidence was given af some length to show that Roberts aduiittVj his position as tenant to Mrs Harris, aa he had frequently paid his half of the ground rent to Robert Harris, her agent, and ! aken his receipi for the money. Mr Moss contended that Roberts was not a teaant in the usual sense, as he had had a direct

interest'transferred to him from Mr Moffatt until the 21 years had expired. Having heard the evidence His Worship was inclined to hold with the contention that Roberts was a tenant, but would reserve his decision on this an l the point raised at the outset by Mr Moss. Both cases therefore stand adjourned till next Court. Special Claim.—E. B. Walker for Blue Ribbon S O. and Joseph Campbell, for Montezuma North S.C. Both these applications were adjourned for want of plans, which had not yet been returned from the Survey Office. In giving judgment the Warden said that he was not satisfied that either side had proved correct pegging. In his opinien neither side had proved they-had pegged exactly the Ruakaka holding. They both only agreed, on certain pegs. He dismissed the objection, but ordered a fresh survey to be made in support of the application. No costs were allowed.

Owing to the lateness of the hour (10.30 p.m)’at which the Court rose we withhold the full evidence in this case until our \next issue. _