WARDEN’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 168, 23 April 1872, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT— Yesterday.

Before JACKSON Ki:nm:i.L Esq., Warden. THE PUKEIIINAU CASE. P. Kelly and others v. C. Kidd and Others. For plaintiffs, Mr Macdonald. For defendants, Mr Tyler. The hearing- of this case was resumed from last Court day. James Crawford, examined by Mr Tyler, deposed : I gave evidence in this case on Thursday. I have known Mr Baird ever since lie has been notorious in mining cases. lie has appeared prominently in public prints in connexion with mining cases. I have been connected with very few cases myself. 1 was not in the Marquis of Lome case. I was a witness at the Supreme Court in the Italian case against Baird, that is against the Italian G.M.C. I have never held an interest with Baird in any claim that I am aware of. Was never very intimate with him. He has never asked mo to mark out a claim for him. Baird, Mackenzie, Hogan, myself, and one or two more met in reference to the Pukehinan. Hogan said we must go in aud win, It

was agreed w should go up and mark out on the 29th February. I did not see Baird that night. Saw him near the Pacific hotel in the afternoon. Hogan and McLean were there also. Baird said we must go and peg out after 12 o’clock. I started between 9 and 10 o’clock. Kidd, | Conroy,McLean, Mackenzie, and a lot more | went. Hogan was not there at first. We went pass the Victoria Battery, and straight up the hill. I don’t know whether Crocker was on the ground or not. We stopped at the south-west corner of the ground. McLean and Maloney and another stayed with me. It was arranged that we should remain there. About 20 went up with us. We waited patiently until twelve o’clock, when the signal was given. I was at the Governor Bowen Hotel, and I adhere to my former evidence as to what took place, although, lob3er-e, that a different version has been given by other witnesses. They may have an interest in giving their version of the matter. By Mr Macdonald : Kidd and Conroy were two of the most prominent amongst the party. There was a general conversation going on as we went up. Kidd and others suggested that Hogan should be fetched as he knew the pegs. I was not one of those who went to fetch hitn. It was said it would not be legal to peg out until 12 o’clock. This was the general opinion of the lot. John Reardon, miner, deposed : I know Michael Kennedy. I remember going to him at your requst, and asking him the names of the shareholders in the I’ukehinau. He gave me the names, and I wrote them down as he gave them to me, and gave the list to you, and afterwards got it back from your office. By Mr Tyler : I got the names about the first week in March. Daniel Gaiveyf miner, deposed : I know the old Pukehinau ground. Shortly before this case came on for hearing I did not see on the ground some pegs marked with a broad arrow. I did see them 8 days ago. I was on the ground on the 29th of February and on the morning of the Ist of March. The pegs marked broad arrow B were not there, nor were they on the day after. I refer more particularly to the peg near the Trig station, and the one near the stump on the Moanataiari side. No one going up the track could miss seeing the pegs. There were no pegs in the places in which the broad arrow B pegs were afterwards. I was on the ground yesterday and saw that the peg by the stump had gone. By Mr Tyler: I went on to the ground on the 29th February about 3 p.m. to mark out the ground. There were then a good many on the pegs in the ground—about 24. 1 did not mark at that time simply because another man marked it out—Mr Wickham, whom I wished to become a shareholder. I took a note 6f the pegs on the 29th February, but I don’t want to produce it. We were perplexed about the Gaxcite notice. I intended to mark out at night, but he marked it out in the afternoon, and I went round with him. I did not remove any pegs.

By Mr Macdonald : When I saw the broad arrow B pegs they were so conspiiuous by size and by standing alone that I could speak positively as to them. John Wickham (who asked plaintiff if lie had got any “ sugar for expenses,” and got them), deposed 1 know the Pukehinau ground, and was there witn Garvey on the 29td February.- I m irked it out on that day. I believe you knew that befoie, and should be glad to know where you got your information from. I have never seen any pegs maikc I B with broad arrow. I have been shown the spot where they were said to have been. Garvey pointed out the place yesterday. On the 29th February there were no pegs in these places. By Mr Tyler : I have some claim to this ground, and of course should be glad to get rid of previous pegging out. By Mr Macdonald : It is a matter of indifference to me which of the two sets of claimants pegged out before me. Janie tHassey stated : I was on the ground on the 27th Februaiy, and also on the 29th. I have seen pegs on the ground marked broad arrow B on the lltli April. I did not see them there on the 29th February. I should have seen them if they had been there. By Mr Tyler : It was about 2 o’clock in the afternoon. I went up to look after some ground next the Christchurch. I had some intention of marking it out on the Ist March, and did so. Mr O’Meara, chief clerk to the Warden, deposed to an application being made for the ground in dispute by plaintiffs, but he declined to receive the application, as it was anterior to the Ist March. Bowler and Booth made application on 4th March, which was entered. (Record produced). —By Mr Tyler :No application has been made by Kelly since the Ist March. Mr Booth endeavoured to obtain information during the past week from me as to when re-entry was made. I do not remember the date of the application by Kelly (28th February). Prior to that there were three applications. I understood my instructions to be not to receive applications except from those who had abandoned their leases. That was the reason I did not entertain Kelly's application —Mr Macdonald applied to strilcc out all the names of plaintiffs except Kelly.—Mr Tyler objected, unless this were done upon terms. —The Court consented to strike out the names upon terms as to costs to be settled hereafter. —This was the case for the plaintiffs.—Mr Tyler said it would take him some time to address the Court, and to-morrow being St. George’s day, he apprehended the Court would not sit, he thought he would be prejudiced by commencing . to-day, and then having the case adjourned until the day after. —Mr Tyler said he thought the Bar was entitled to a holiday on St. George’s Day as much as on St. Patrick’s or St. Andrew’s Days. II would not go into the question of the merits of the characters of the saints, as he understood a clergyman last night preached a sermon, in which he characterised St. George as a thief (laughter) ; but still he thought there should be a holiday.—The Warden said it would be no holiday to him, as lie should have plenty to do in the office : but he would adjourn the Court until Wednesday. The Court adjourned until \\ eduesday morning next, when Mr Tyler will go into the case for the defence.