WARDEN’S COURT.—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 17, 26 October 1871, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT.— Yesterday.

Before W. FRASER, Esq., 'Warden. R. W. Rice v. James Girdwood. —Mr Tyler and Mr Miller for defendant ; Mr Dodd, who was to have appeared for the complainant, was not present. The R.M. said that Mr Dodd had stated to him at the Police Court that morning that he had just received intelligence of the death of his father and had requested Mr Miller to appear foj him. Mr Tyler said Mr Miller was with him in the case. * He apprehended the only course was to strike the case out, as neither complainaut nor his counsel appeared, although he should be sorry to take any unfair advantage under the circumstances. At this stage of the proceedings Mr Dodd appeared. Mr Tyler said under the circumstances he would consent to an adjournment, but he had a preliminary objection to raise to the plaint—that it did not disclose any course of action, because it is laid under the Gth regulation, which applied only to claims as defined by regulation 12, and not to machine sites. The plaint set forth that the defendant is the registered owner of a machine site on the Waiotahi Creek, and that he had neglected to work or occupy the same for the space of more than one working day immediately proceeding the day on which the complaint was laid. The com-, plainant therefore- seeks to be put in possession of the site on the ground of its not having been worked fairly during the period of occupancy. The Warden overruled the objection, and adjourned the case until Thursday week. —Another case was then called on, in which the same defencant was charged as the holder of certain water right in the Waiotahi, that lie had neglected to register the same or to renew the same in accordance with the terms of the certificate. —-Mr. Tyler said ho' appeared for defendant, and entered a disclaimer to the action, as defendant nevei held the water light. He would consent to the certificate being cancelled. —Robert William Rice deposed, that he is the holder of a miner’s right, and knows the water right in question—lt has not been used for the last 9 months—There is a battery known as Girdwood’s Battery on the ground, but it has not been worked during that period— The wate is running to waste.—John O’Meara, clerk in the Warden’s Office, produced the counterpart of a certificate of part of water right to James Girdwood, issued on the 25th, June, 18G9.—Ihe Warden ordered the certificate to be cancelled. James Ocklesiiaw v. Peter Connolly. —The complainant in this case alleged that he holds a certificate for a residence site on the Karaka block, and that defendant is in possession of the site, upon which he has erected a cottage, and refuses to give up possession.—The R.M. asked complainant why he did not go and take possession. Connolly had not been to him (the Waiden) and told that he (Connolly) never refused to give up possession because he never was asked. He would adjourn the case for a week, and if in the meantime Mr Ockleshaw could obtain peaceable possession without any trouble, he need not come again to this Court. The Court adjourned until 11 a.m. on Thursday (this day).