WARDEN’S COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 12, 20 October 1871, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT.— Yesterday.

Before W. Frr.rer, Esq., 8.M.) John Stanford v. John Hanston. —This was a claim for £2, balance alleged to be owing by defendant to complainant for work and labor done in mining.—The complainant being sworn stated that he holds a miners right. Knows defendant. Was employed by him to work a half share in the Golden Point elaim for two weeks and three days at £1 per week Has been paid 10s, and there is a balance now due and owing of £2. —By the complainant : It wus a man named Martin who employed me, but I looked to you to pay wages.—Elijah Target stated that he is a miner and shareholder in the above claim. Received 10s from the defendant to pay* to complainant. Defendant said at the time he intended to pay no more.—Ewd. Osborne also deposed hearing defendant after paying the 10s say he would pay no more as the claim did not pay. By complainant: I did not hear the defendant ask you to work another week till there was another crushing.— John Hanston, the defendant, being sworn stated that he did not give the 'complainant anything at all. When he paid him the 10s, there was nothing more owing, and he then told the complainant he should pay no more, as the claim did not pay.—By complainant: I did not say I would give you an extra ten shillings if you’d go on working.—The R.M. said it was clear if the claim had paid, the defendant would have been ready enough to take advantage of it, but as it did*not he wanted to get out of paying the wages—like a great many more people he neither wanted to pay wages nor to give up his interest. If he wanted to get clear of one matter he should go to the Registrar office, and register his abandonment of his interest. —Judgment for complain:..;, with costs. Fitz Gerald v. Crosbie. —Mr. Ty 1 ;r said their had been a mistake in addi. up the costs in this case, which should have been £2O 3s. The mistake was rectified. JOHN SAVAGE V, HENRY BOUCHER. The plaint in this case set forth that the defendant is the registered owner of a water right in the Karaka Creek, for which he holds no miner’s rigid, wheiefore complainant claims to take possession. Mr Lascelles for complainant. The defendant did not appear. Mr Lascelles said the dcsendant had not been in the colony for 18 months and the notice had been served on the claim.—The Wr..c!en said it had only been served the day before yesterday, which was giving very short notice, but Mr Lascelles might go on with the case. He (the Warden) however, must have the case made very clear before ho ordered a man’s property to be forfeited.—The complainant stated that the defendant had not been heard of for T 8 months or two years and was supposed to be in Sydney or Van Dieman’s Land. Complainant now seeks to take possession of the water right which defendant previously held on the Karaka Creek.— Mr produced the register, by which it appeared that the water right in question was granted to defendant on the 21st March, 1869, was renewed on the 9th June, 1870, and on the 3rd October, 1871, dating from the previous March. It remains registered in defendant’s name.— Mr Robinson, Mining Registrar, proved that Boucher, the defendant, held no miner’s right since July, 1870. His Worship said he must hold that Boucher had no right to the water race, but he would not adjudge that complainant should take possession of it, asthere might be superior rights. It did not follow that because the applicant proved that defendant had no title that the applicant was therefore to step into defendant’s shoes. Same v. Same. —This was a similar case, in which the plaint set forth that the defendant is the registered owner of a machine site, for which he holds no miner’s right, and complainant therefore claims to be put in possession. Similar evidence was given to that in the last case, and the Warden ruled that the defendant had no title to the machine site, and that defendant be authorised to take possession.