WARDEN’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 60, 15 December 1871, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT— Yesterday.

Before W. Fraser, Esq., Warden. Wm. Thomas and Others v. Bright Smile Company. —For complainant, Mr. Meyers (for Mr. Sheehan). For defendants, Mr Macdonald and Mr Tyler. This was an action by William Thomas and others, as registered owners of the “Queen of Beauty amalgamated” claim against the Bright Smile G.M.C. for encroachment.—Mr Meyers said he appeared (for Mr Sheehan), for the complainant in this case. It would be remembered that this ease was adjourned until to-day by consent. He had since received a letter from Mr Tyler, stating that he would apply for a writ of prohibition, and that whether or not the prohibition were granted, he should ask for an adjournment. Mr Heskelh had been engaged in this case, and this was supposed to have been the only available day on which he could appear. But on Monday Mr Hesketh told him he could not appear, as Mr De Hirscli objected to his appearing, on the ground that he was engaged for Mr De Hirsch in a similar case. In reply to the Warden Mr Tyler said the rule nisi had not been obtained,owingto adefectarisingfrom the want of a necessary affidavit.—Mr Macdonald said he thought it was unfair to both sides to incur unnecessary expense, and on the ground of economy lie would suggest that they should first know whether they could get the prohibition, and if it was decided that the court had jurisdiction, they could then fight the matter out. He would ask the other side to admit, or to have evidence taken, that the locus in quo was situated between the base of the hills and the gulf. This was done in the case of Brodie and theTokatea. —The Warden said the Tokatea was not a similar case.—Mr Macdonald asked Mr Meyers if he would make the admission, required.—Mr Meyers said he could not make the admission.— The Warden said Mr Meyers only appeared here for Mr Sheehan, and he (the Warden) could not :: eive his (Mr Meyer’s) admission, even if he were able and willing to make it. He had intimated when the case was before him on the former occasion, that he should assume jurisdiction unless he was restrained. This claim was either within the goldfield or not. Of course if it was not, he had nothing to do with it.—Mr Tyler said the Chief Justice had intimated, on the application for prohibition, that there was hardly sufficient before him to say then that the Warden had assumed jurisdiction : The Warden was privileged, and it was indeed his duty when the point was raised before him, to take evidence to ascertain whether the case was within his jurisdiction, the defect, if any, not appearing on the face of the proceedings : Mr Rees obtained leave to mention the case again in a week. It was arranged that the case should be adjourned until the next case had been heard to see if the lawyers could settle amongst themselves. Windsor Castle G.M.C. v. William Littlejohn. —This was an action for encroachment on the Berkeley Castle claim, and was adjourned until Monday, on the application of Mr Tyler.

M. Britt v. H. Cooper and others. — Mr Tjder for complainant; Mr McDonald for defendants.—This was a complaint against the defendants, as registered owners of the Watchman claim, for holding more ground than they were entitled to under their miners’ rights, or in respect of the number of mens’ ground for which they were registered.—The defendants’ title to the ground was under a lease which had become vacant, and they re-entered taking what ground there was.—Mr Lessong, tlie surveyor, proved that the claim was in excess of five men’s ground. The Warden adjudged that the defendants were holding ground in excess of that to which they were entitled, and that complainant take possession : Defendants to pay costs. His Worship said he would fix the position of the surplus ground with the parties concerned in chambers on Tuesday next. The costs in this case were £ll Is.

Thomas v. Bright Smile. —This case was again called on, and Mr Tyler said it had been agreed to facilitate the application for prohibition, that a plan containing the site of the encroachment, and the boundaries of the two claims should be admitted, as a correct plan showing the true position of the site and boundaries, also the boundaries of the native reserves known as blocks No. 4, and No. 5, Kauwaeranga. As to the question, whether or not a certain point was within the base of the hills, no admission was obtained.— The Warden said he was prepared to certify that the plan showed the locus in quo. The site of the dispute, as to the base of the hills, there was great differences of opinion. The natives themselves differed as to the base of the hills.—Mr Macdonald said he should again raise the objection that the Court had no jurisdiction.—The Warden said the case was not before him, except asto the injunction. He, as Warden of the goldfields would assume the jurisdiction on the site on the plan produced.— Mr Tyler asked the Warden if he would allow him a copy of his notes.—His Worship assented. The case was then adjourned until the 9th January. Daniel Frieland v P. Curley. —The plaint in this case set forth, that the defendant is the registered owner of a full share in the Green Isle claim, on the Waiotahi Creek, and has neglected to fairly work the same, wherefore complainant now seeks to obtain possession.—The defendant said he had not been working the share himself, but had employed a wages man. In reply to the Warden, the complainant said he had not given notice to defendant, that his wages man had not been working, —The Warden said he could not under the circumstances, give possession of the share to the complainant. He would dismiss the case, but without costs. The Court then adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m.