WARDEN’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 63, 19 December 1871, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT—Yesterday.

Before AV. Fraser, Esq., AVarden. Windsor Castle G.M.Co v. W. Littlejohn.—This AA'as a complaint by the Windsor Castle G.M.Co. against the defendant for encroaching upon the Berkeley Castle claim (noAvWindsorCaslle) from the 24th August up to date of lodging the complaint.—Mr Tyler appeared for the Company, and Mr Macdonald for defendant.—W. C. Wright, surveyor, produced a plan of the claim showing the Avorkings, and pointod out Avlicre defendant avrs at Avork.—The defence Avas that the ground Avherc defendant Avas at Avork Avas let to him under tribute.—A memorandum of an agreement AA r as produced, but it Avas unstamped, and the Warden declined to receh r e it unless the requirements of the IaAV in this particular Avere complied Avith. This having been done, the agreement Avas put in, from Avliich it appeared that the parties had agreed in the event of any dispute to refer the matter to arbitration.—The Warden said this Avas one of those cases that Avould be much better decided by arbitration. In the face of the agreement he did not see that it Avas much use of complainants to come to him. —Mr Tyler observed that an agreement to refer to arbitration could not oust the jurisdiction of a court of law.—Mr Macdonald observed that this principle had been greatly modified. After a consultation, and an ineffectual attempt to settle the matter, the case Avas proceeded Avith, and defendant proceeded to state that he had been Avorking according to the tribute, and making payments from the proceeds of the mine from time to time. The gold Avas lodged to the company’s c. edit at the bank, in all cases but one. Witness received his per centagc from the company. Frequent reference Avas made to the terms of the agreement, Avliich Avere very conflicting, the Warden observing that Avas one of the most idiotic sort of agreements he e\’er suav, and that it Avas next to impossible to understand Avhat it meant.—William McGinstry, one of the directors of the Windsor Castle, and also of the old Berkeley Castle, deposed that defendant Avas not working in accordance Avith the agreement as understood by the directors. It Avas understood that defendant Avas not to Avork below the . level of the existing Berkeley Castle drive, but he kept Avorking as if the ground Avas his own, commenced sinking a winze which Avas not Avanted, and did not put in a level Avliich Avas Avanted. Moreover lie did not give due and sufficient notice of the crushiugs, and Avitness, hearing that he Avasnot sinking properly, came specially doAvn from Auckland to sec about the matter, but could not get the defendant to do Avhat Avitness Avanted him.—Robert Mitchell, the maker of the agreement, Avas called in support of the complainants’ case, to slioav slioav that defendant Avas Avorking at a different level, and in a different manner from that intended—that notice of the crushings had not been given, and that a specimen had been sold to Spencer and Hall. For the sale of this specimen defendant said he had the authority of Mr Pugh, one of the directors The summons in this action Avas taken out on the sth October, but Avas not served until 2nd Dec., Avith a view of the mattter being compromised, and a fresh agreement entered into. Mr Pugh and Mr Boyd directors of the company Aveve also examined as to the nature of the agreement Avith Littlejohn, but it appeared very difficult to understand what Avas the understanding between the parties.—Williarq Percival was called to prove that defendant Avas not Avorking according to. the agreement.—The learned counsel having addressed the Court, his Worship reserved judgment, intimating that he Avould probably give it on Thursday next.