WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1803, 13 October 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Phaser, Esq., Warden.) JOHN COEITES V. WAIOTAHI &.M.CO.

This was a claim of damages for trespass upon a residence site, adjourned from last sitting of the "Warden's Court.

Mr. Tyler, with. Mr. Brassey, appeared for complainant; Messrs. Macdonald and Miller for defendants.

John Comes, miner, deposed—That he was the owner of a resident site, of which the document produced was the title. He was living upon that site. He was working in the Queen of Beauty. At the time the grievance commenced he was working on the day shift. The ground was fenced in. He had improved the ground, which was originally swampy. He filled it up. When he came home on the 14th of August he found the fence cut down and a drain extending from the mouth of the Waiotalii mine through his premises. He had a communication with the manager of the Waiotahi on the Monday. He asked him whether the directors would give him compensation. The manager, Mr. Smith, said he liad no right to it, as the site was

on the Waiotahi ground. Witness then told Mr. Smuli that if he was not allowed compensation he should take proceedings. Witness subsequently remonstrated with them, hut no notice was taken, and the men worked for six days after. The fence, was put up again in a temporaryway, but was blown down during one night. The cutting of a portion cf the fence had weakened it. The fence had never blown down before. The good soil which witness had put on the ground was placed on the box drain, and other earth placed on top of that. £2 would fix the fence. (Defendant's miner's right was put in.) By Mr. Macdonald — The manager spoke to me three or four days before. I went home on the 14th aad. found the fence cut through.

: By Mr. Tyler—During that conversation I did not give permission to cut through the fence or dig the drain.

J. E. Smith, manager of the Waiotahi mine, deposed that during the month of August he received some instructions relative to searching for a leader in a certain drive, the mouth of which faced complainant's premises. He asked complainant for permission to go into the site. Complainant said he did riot know that the site vras on the,company's ground, but "if so, I suppos xc you can." Witness told him that he would put everything as he found it. Two men were then put on, and a-drain.was put through the premises, a part of the fence being cut down. The evidence of claimant as to the Conversation was true. When witness told plaintiff that the directors would not give compensation, he (plaintiff) said he would try and see what he could do. They worked for four day? after that, and during the day the fence was kept down—they wheeling out.

By Mr. Macdonald—The water from the drive would flow over the allotment. The drain put in prevented this. The drive was an advantage to complainant. The fence was put up more firuily than it had been before. The rails had been cut through. They were obliged to do this because the rails ran through three posts. The allotment was on the Waiotahi lease. Subsequently asked complainant whether he was satisfied, when he (complainant) said if he had known as much at first as he did then he would not have allowed them to go in at all. Michael Britt was called for the defence, and said he had been one of the men employed on the drain. The saw to cut the fence was obtained from complainant, who had never made any objection to their working. The fence broke down by reason of a post breaking off close to the ground. . James Wooderson deposed that he had been working with Britt on the drain. Had borrowed a saw from complainant one day. Cornos said to witness he (Comes) would have to see about getting some compensation. The pest gave way at the ground. J. E. Smith was recalled, and deposed that one of the posts had broken close to the ground. Henry Goldsmith was next examined. He produced a sketch of the allotment and the direction of the drive. He thought the garden was improved by the drain. Did not tkink Comes had sustained any damage, unless to the fence.

Complainant was re-called to give evidence as to the falling of the fence. He said the cutting of the drain had undermined the post, and was left hanging on the fence. He lent a saw to cut a slab ; for no other purpose. Mr. Macdonald addressed the Court at some length on the several points in the evidence. -.-...•

Mr. Tyler replied. , His Worship sad had the fence beeji put up properly a farthing damages would hare been sufficient, bu as it was he

should give judgment for the amount to wliich claimant considered himself aggrieved, namely £2. , f

THE DEAINAGE CASES

A number of these cases were down on the sheet forbearing this morning. They were all adjourned. Eegardjncj the Crown Prince Mr. Tyler said he had received a letter stating that the case was settled, but asking that it might be adjourned. As to the Bird in Hand, Mr. Tyler said he had hoped that the case would be settled, but feared now that such would not be the case. This and others were then adjourned for a fortnight, the 27th inst. '

Court adjourned