WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2037, 15 July 1875, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

YESTEBIXA.Y. , „ , (Before W. Fbaseb Esq., 8.M.) The Tairua Cases. BAIBDV. NEVEB AND OTHEBS. ■The rplaint in this lease was—that the defendants did on or about the 13th day of April 1875 lodge in the 1 above named Warden's Court an application under the 39th section of thefGoldmining Districts Act 1873 for a license for- t goldmining purposes, for a piece of land called the Tairua claim situated. about half way between Tairua and Puriri, and did allege in the said application that the .claim was pegged out on the" 10tK day of April, 1875, and thereupon, ,oni or about the 3 6th day of March, 1875, Warden Eraser unto John Edwin Mac--donald at the request; whereas in truth the said John Neve.s ,and George, Samnel Graham had not nor had any person on their behalf, nor any: one through whom they claim or claimed, pegged out the said claim .at all on the 10th day of April, nor were the pegs put in by them, or any one proper peg within the incoming of the Act. Wherefore the complainants prayed to be put in possession. ' Mr Rees appeared for the plaintiff, and MrTyler, with MessrsHesketh and Brassey for defendants, and in his openingremarks stated that there were preliminary .objections to the, suit and having read' the plaints stated that the first objection was, that the Warden could not grant, an order to take possession of, ground for which a license has been granted until that license has been set aside or cancelled. 2. That the Warden could not set the license aside without the parties to it being before the Court, and one of the. licensees, J. E. Macdonald, had not been made a party to the suit, and therefore could not appear as a defendant. Also, that the Beceiver of Bevenue was interested in this license, and that neither had he been a party to the- suit. 3. That it is incompetent for complainant to, come to this Court, and ask the Court to cancel a license, notice of granting which had^ been properly given.' * 4. That' the objection that the license had been obtained by fraud aud mis-representation was not - specific enough in its details as to wherein the fraud consisted, which he contended mrst be stated, in order to give the defendants an opportunity of answering the charges contained. . • Mr Bees stated that it was "simply an oversight that-Mr Macdonald had not been made a defendant, and that it was not necessary to make the^gold-receiver a party to the suit, neither could he be., made one, as he had no interest in the suit at issue, fle therefore applied to, have an amendment to the plaint madeby which Mr Macdonald's name should be : included with the > defendants. ;Mr Bees ' urged' that the that it was hot necessary that the plaintiff should 'have stated his objections prior to the I granting of the license, as contended by^ Mr Tyler;iand aguedfrpm analogy of the Patent Act, and that Mr Tyler's objection was not a preliminary one as regarded the charge of fraud and misrepf esentation.f JVCr Beesf .stetedfai -was pleMy ~an JmfoeirialiTyrand asi'such'could not under th^e provisions of the Act (Section 152) invali-* date the suit. Mr Bees made an appli- - cationvtO/amend; the /summons* including thenainWof MrMacdon'aid. • Mr Macdonald left the matter in the* hands of his lawyers, and Mr Hesketh thought that the Court had not the power to order Mr Macdonald's name to be joined to an amended plaint. ;. The Warden said he was not sure whether he had the power to do so, but if he had he certainly would not use it in order to make Mr Macdonald a .party to the defence against his will. It being five o'clock the Court then adjourned to 10 o'clock the following day.