WARDEN’S COURT—Yesterday.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 170, 25 April 1872, Page 3

WARDEN’S COURT— Yesterday.

Before Jackson Kimnui.i, Esq., Warden. TIIE PUKEIIINAU CASE. P. Kelly and others v. C. Kidd and Others. For plaintiffs, Mr Macdonald. For defendants, Mr Tyler. Mi Tyler opened the case for defendants observing that he thought the Legislature of this country had not acted wisely in abolishing assessors, as this was one of those cases which was peculiarly adapted for their consideration. Trial by jury was one of the bulwarks of the British Constitution, and by abolishing that element when passing the new Mining Districts Bill he thought a great wrong had been committed. The learned counsel then went over the evidence already adduced, pointing out its contradictions, and reading a considerable portion of it from his notes. He contended that the case for the plaint ill’s rested in a very great measure on the testimony of Ewans, the painter, which was based upon entries made in his day book, but the entries did not bear out his testimony, and were not he believed, made at the time, and would be contradicted by at least live witnesses for the defence. It must be borne in mind that Evans had a strong animus against Conroy, so much so that he threatened to prosecute him ; and as to what Duthichad stated, that was merely a reflex of what he heard in conversation with Evans and in McCloughcn’s bar. So far as the evidence went as to what took place at the Governor Bowen hotel at the meeting held there on the Ist March, all the witnesses agreed as to what occurred, except McLean and Crawford, but it must not lie forgotten that these two were inseparable associates, and had been active in giving evidence against Baird's interest in the “ Italian” claim, in which Crawford and a man named Erskinc had lent themselves to what must be characterised as a deliberate swindle. As against the evidence of these two—Crawford and McLean —there was the positive testimony of nine witnesses who agreed as to what took place. Mr Tyler again read a considerable portion of the evidence as it appeared on his notes, and contended that the balance of testimony was in favor of defendants, irrespective of the evidence which he had yet to call in support of their case. As to the suggestion which was said to have been made by Kidd and Conroy to Evans that he shouhl falsify his books, it was very doubtful if it ever had been made by either Kidd or Conroy, and the evidence of Pricker and Evans differed on the point as to the words said to have been made use of. The real question at issue was, "who first pegged out the ground after it was open for occupation,” and he contended that it would be found, to the satisfaction of the Court, that the defendants’ title was good on the marking out on the ffi’u February. Before concluding lie would remark that the case had so far been conducted to the disadvantage of the defendants, by the manner iu which the witnesses had been sub-

poenaed, and that certain parties..jyho joined with Kelly in the action were struck out—not at the commencement of the caso but when it had been partly heard. Richard Henry Tyler, painter, deposed : I reside in Queen-street, Grahamstown, and know Air Evans and Mr Conroy, who are painters also. Saw Conroy in the shop of Evans some time at the beginning of February, when he purchased some oil and lead, and other things. It was seven or eight o’clock in the evening. It was just after tea; when I usually take a walk out for an hour. I met Conroy, and after some conversation we went into Evan’s shop. Evans was not in when we got there, hut he came in shortly afterwards, saying lie had just come in from Tararu. The things spoken of were then supplied by Evans to Conroy, who went out as soon as he had been served. Evans and I then had some conversation about what work Conroy was going to do, and liow he was going to do it. Evans said he did not know whether the work was to be done on contract or not, hut he had an order given him by Conroy from McCloughen to supply what articles were required. Did not see Conroy again that evening or next day. I have seen Evan’s since. I saw him yesterday. Nothing was said then about Ibis affair. Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald : I sometimes wore a blue coat, and you may have seen me with it on talking to Conroy. Duthie was present on the occasion referred to. By Mr Tyler : I did not see any order given to Evans, but it might have been given without me seeing it. Richard Thompson deposed : I am barman at the Court-house Hotel, and have sometimes done painting. I was painting tor Mr Calder from Christmas until February, at the W'liarf Hotel and at the Stafford Hotel (.McClouglien’s). Left off working at the latter on Friday, the fit.li February. Had been working there all that day. I know Conroy by sight. He was not working there that day. No one had been working at painting with me that day. I did not go to work, there on Saturday, as there was no work tor me. I saw Conroy that morning, a little after G o’clock. lie was painting the ceiling at AlcCloughen’s. lam certain Conroy was not working on the 9th at AlcCloughen’s. After leaving painting, 1 was called to the bar. Air Craig asked me to go and put Air Leylaud into the way of hotel-keep-ing. Painting pays better than barkeeping. Peter Dewar deposed : I live on the AVaiotahi Creek, and know Conroy. I went with him to Evans's shop somo time in February. Don’t remember the date. It was Bor fi o’clock at night. John Elliott, engine-driver, Tramway Battery, deposed : I know Michael Conroy. I saw him in the month of February. He came down off the tramway into the battery. It was on the 2fith or rather the fith February, about 4 o’clock. It was on a Friday. I know the day, because the manager went away, and I left a message on the state for him. By Air Macdonald : Kay is the manager of the battery. I have not spoken to him about this matter. lam confident it was on the fith February.

Thomas Alillett, miner, Grahamstown, deposed. I know the Pukehinau ground. I saw Kennedy, Hayes, and Conroy putting in a peg on the fith February, as I came down the hill. It was between I and 2 o’clock. I spoke to Kennedy at the time. I have no interest injthis claim. I heard Kennedy tell Reardon the names of those who -were shareholders. Kennedy said there were a whole swag of them, and then gave the names of Patterson, Kay, and others. By Mr Macdonald : In have no interest in the ground. I have been there several times on business. I saw the pegs I have spoken of on the 27th, marked broad arrow B.” I had intended to peg the around out, hut Reardon and party told me I was too late ; this was on the 27th February. I saw by the paper that day that the ground was open from the Ist Alarcli. I thought I could peg out any time after it was gazetted. I believe AlcKelvie pegged it out. I was at the meeting at the Governor Bowen. I was looking after a piece of ground during the month of February On the fith February I had been to look after a tribute at Punga Flat. I have been here 4 years, and know the ways of the place. I had something to do with the Poverty. If I had had any idea that the ground wasopen I would have hadawhaekat it as well as the rest. Idon’t keep a diary. I was at the meeting at the Bowen. I did not subscribe to the fund for expenses. The Court here adjourned until next morning. The following cases will he taken on Wednesday next: —R. 11. Connor v. J. C. Young, 11. Goldsmith v. J. B. Steadman, J. 11. Ileitmann v. Long Tunnel G.M.C., R. Auriemma v. Coronet G.M.C., LongDrive G.AI.C. v Moanatairi G.M.C.