WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3539, 29 April 1880, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

. THIS DAY. (Before H/Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) JOHN BENHEY V. JNO. AND MABK EOWE,

This was a suit to obtain surplus ground pegged out by the defendant, in the Jlaraka Creek. - Mr Brassey appeared for the complainant, and Mr Miller for the defendants.

Mr G-. Wilson, underviewer, represen* ted the Mining Inspector.

Mr Miller contended ■ that one man could peg out any amount of land he chose, provided, that the land were properly worked. Mr Brassey said that the regulations were to be taken into consideration.

Mr Miller said the Act would certainly override the regulations. There would be some evidence with regard to the removal of the pegs be understood. Mr Brassey asked that one of the defendants be requested to leave the Court while the other was examined. . Mr Miller said that was a very unusual course to pursue, but he did not object. The witnesses then left the Court. ' Mark Rowe said he was one of the defendants in the case. The portion within the green lines on the plan represents the land pegged out by myself and my brother. I put in fire pegs in the day. I took no measurement then, but did so a short time afterwards. Mr Beuney knew perfectly well that I had pegged out the ground. He saw some of tha pegs that I first of ell put in. The pegs can be seen plain enough. I pointed him out one peg. It was not the eastern peg I showed him. Mr Wilson asked me to put in the peg referred to on the plan. The piece we claim is marked within the green lines. I never showed Mr Benney over the i ground since I have been there. Mr \ Wilson made this plan on my information. I do not know whether the pegs have been Bhifted or not. When I went round with Mr Wilson four of the pegs were in the same position as when I originally put them in.. The other one was shifted a few feet. Mr Benney only pointed one peg out to me. The corner peg has never besn shifted. The peg was never there at all. My son hits been four weeks come Monday with me. * " | W. J. Howe was then called, but his evidence was similar in substance to that of his brother. - ■ George Wilson said he prepared the plan. The brothers Eowe pointed out the boundaries of the land they had pegged out. The peg marked X was put in in his presence. Mr Benney said they had more land than had been marked out on the plan. He showed me a hole in the clay, where a peg had been driven in. He often heard of pegs being removed. The Bowes never claimed the land between the green and brown lines, to my knowledge. v John Benney said he saw both the pegs being altered. He claimed the ground in excess of that pegged out for the two men.

Cross examined by Mr Miller—He worked this same ground at one time, but he gave it up for the time. Jf^e did not want to go near them. He wanted to get near them because they were getting wages. He was anxious to get a share oi the tunnel, but did not wish to trespass on their^ground. He pegged out their original ckirq.

James Williams said he was working the claim adjoining the Leonora. Mr Miller said his clients only claimed the amount of land pegged originally by them. His contention was that it was not necessary to employ three men on a claim,

if that claim did not contain 45,000 feet. The regulations demand that there shall be one man working for every 15,000 feet, but if the claim does notcontaiu thatnum ber of feet, surely the Court would not say that they would put half a man on. Until there was the full amount of ground allotted to three men, the owners were not bound to put three"men on. The Stamp Act was a good example to go by. The Act stated that there should be a shilling stamp for every £50 or fractional part of £50. If the regulations referring to olairos were made similar, and the words " or fractional p^rt" of 15,000 were inserted, then it would be necessary to employ a man for any fractional part of 15,000 feet over the claims of one or two men.

Mark Eowe was called, but his evidence was the same as previously given. The remainder of the evidence was the same as given for the prosecution. Mr Miller said that there was not any evidence that the plaintiff held a Miners' Right. [The Miners' Eight in question was then produced.] He reviewed the evidence, and left the case in the hands oi the Court.

Mr Brassey said that his friend had said that the defendants had given their evidence honestly and fairly, but if there was ever £f case iv which shuffling testimony was given it was the one of this .morning. He made a lengthy resume of the evidence as bearing on the side of the prosecution, and submitted that the weight of evidence was on the side of the plaintiff. \ His Worship after commenting on the conflicting character of the evidence gave judgment for the plaintiff with costs. This was all the business.