Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WARDEN'S COURT— Yesterday.

Before W. Fraser, Esq., Warden. W. Thomas and others v. Bright Smile G.M.Co.—This case which has been pending for some time, is an action by William Thomas and others, as the registered owners of the “ Queen of Beauty ” amalgamated claim on the Waio-Karaka creek, against the Bright Smile G. M. Company, for encroachment.—Mr Tyler appeared for defendants and said it would appear as if plaintiffs had forgotten all about the matter being set down for hearing to-day, lie had therefore to apply for another adjournment,—The R.M. said he understood the case was coming on forbearing on the 25th (in the Supremo Court), and that the Attorney-General was coining from Wellington to argue the ease. —The case was then adjourned for a fortnight. Mclliione v. Penn. —This was a complaint by the Inspector of Miners’ Rights against John Penn for cutting timber at Whakawau, within the boundaries of the goldfield, without a license. —This case was heard on Wednesday last, in the absence of defendant, who was fined £5, but lie appeared the next day and stated that be bad been mis-informed by Mr Melik one as to the day of hearing. An affidavit was filed to this effect, and Mr Mcllhonc admitted that such was tho case. Upon this the Warden granted a re-hearing, and the case was now called on. The evidence of Mr M‘llhoue, taken at the previous hearing, was read over. The defendant said lie was a foreigner, and had acted in ignorance of the rules and regulations, and he had very little money. He had not been cutting the timber for lymself, but for another man named Rogers. Ilad no (timber license or miner’s right. Ihe Warden said he could see his way to let defenuant off if he had a miner’s right, hut without that defendant had no right to cut timber at all, arm therefore he (the Warden) must inflict a penalty, but it would, under the circumstances, be the mitigated one of 20s. MrMTlliouc said ho should not press for costs.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TGMR18720124.2.23

Bibliographic details

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 91, 24 January 1872, Page 3

Word Count
341

WARDEN'S COURT—Yesterday. Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 91, 24 January 1872, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT—Yesterday. Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 91, 24 January 1872, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert