COURTS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 243, 19 July 1872, Page 3

COURTS.

WARDEN’S* COURT.— Yesterday [Biiforc WrtFlusKn. Esq., Warden.] T. B. HICKS V. .TAMES MENNIE. Mr Tyler for complaiuant; Mr Macdonald for defendant. In this case defendant was charged with erecting a house on a residence site within 33 feet of a road, at tho junction of Albert and Pollen streets, contrary to the Goldfields regulations. Complainant therefore prays the Court to adjudge defendant to have committed such offence, that he be fined in a penalty not exceeding £lO, and he restrained from future occupation of the ground within 33 feet of the road. Mr Tyler said the reasons which necessitated this proceeding was that dele dant had fenced in a residence so as to entirely cut off defendant’s right of way to which was also a public thoroughfare, and had so been used for years. A plan of the locality was produced. The Warden said it appeared to him that all the resident sites adjoining also encroached upon the thoroughfare, if it was one.

Thomas Bennet Hicks, deposed : I am the owner of a residence site next but one to the defendant’s. Mr Endean’s is between me and Mcnuic & Dey’s. They have two sites adjoining : then comes Endean’s and mine next. [Witness sketched on a piece of paper a rough plan of the ground.] Defendant told me that ho had agreed to allow a right of way to Emlean and others if they would allow him to connect his bakehouse with his other building. By Mr Macdonald : I bought the place from Mr Thompson, who told me that there was a right of way, and that Minnie & Dey had agreed to leave a right of way, hut had since stopped it up. I have been four years on the goldfield. The 1 iiorotignfare in question was a wellheatrii road, and I have often walked over it myself. All I want is an outlet from my place. Francis Dakin deposed : I was manager lor eighteen months of the Mariner’s Reef claim, and was for six mWitlis manager of the Sailor Prince. We used to take timber along the tho oughfare in question : there’s a stone wall there now. John Head deposed : lam working at Messrs Iloldsliips. I formerly ln-ld a residence site, and some time ago I took proceedings against defendants for stopping up my thoroughfare, hut the case was compromised by Mr Meiinie buying me out for £25. Other persons used this right of way besides myself. Mr Millett measured the road, and I put a peg in to where lie pointed out the path. Robert Thompson deposed : I resided on tho site in question four years ago. There was nobody else from Albert-street lo the Mariner’s Reef then. I lived on a tent on the ground, and afterwards built a house on it. 1 left 12 feet in front for a right of way. It was used by the general public. Mennie stopped it up. I was advised to take legal proceedings, but he promised to leave a road. Ho fenced it up a few weeks ago. Mr Millett pointed out the footpath. There was an action three years ago in the Warden’s Court in which this thoroughfare came into question. By Mr Macdonald : This lias been a road ever since I knew it. Our pegs were on the line of the goldfields boundary.

By Mr Tyler : There was a path when I first went there, which was used by the public. This was four years ago. John Eudean deposed : I am a miner, holding a residence site near Mennie & Dey’s. Have had it twelve months. I bought the allotment from Mr Rhodes, with the understanding- that there was a right of way. I was stopped on the 20th June, and I can neither get in nor out without jumping over the wall. William Rhodes deposed : I formerly held a residence site near Mennie & Dey’s, which I subsequently sold to Mr Endean. Occupied it for some months. Used to go to it by a track on which Mennie & Dey’s building now stands. The thoroughfare was used by the public. I assisted Mr Head in taking proceedings against Mennie, which proceedings were subsequently compromised. Mennie said lie would never fence up the road if the action was dropped. Henry Goldsmith, Mining Inspector, deposed : I know the situation of the road and premises in question. I know nothing of the original road. At present the people residing on these sites have neither means of ingress or egress except through private allotments. This was the complainant’s case. Mr Macdonald said he should not call any witnesses. The Wardi-n asked if there was no way in which this matter could he settled between these parties. If the matter were a Ijourned perhaps an arrangement could be made. It was agreed that the case should stand over until next Court day with a view to a settlement. T. B. HICKS. V. JAMES MENNIEAND ANOTHER. In this ease Thomas Bt-nnet Hicks, of Graiiamstown, miner, complained against James Mennie ami William Dey for interfering with a road near the junction of Albert ami Pollen-streets by erecting a siiop and putting a fence across the road, thereby obstructing the tliorougfare ; Complainant therefore prays the Court to adjudge the defendants to have committed the several breaches of Hie Goldfields regulations above enumerated, ami that they be lined in a penalty not exceeding £lO for each offence, mid that they be restrained from further interference with the road in question. This case was also adjourned until next Court-day. The Court then adjourned until Wednesday next. *