WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3761, 17 January 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, E^q., Warden.) SCANLAST Y. 15YBNE,

In this case Mr Dodd appeared for the plaintiffs ' . '!

', -It appears that Bryne had pegged off a claim and gave notice of pegging in the Warden's office, and that after having given such notice he failed to work the ground. la the meantime, Hickey and party, of the Pinafore claitn, knowing that Bryue had gone to Te lAroha and had abandoned the ground, hacl pegged it out and applied for a license fbr ground to be amalgamated in the Pinafore claim. In the meantime, Scanlan, kriowing that the Pinafore had struck good sold, endeavored to obtain the ground -pegged out by Bryan, and_ which is included in the license applied for by the shareholders in the Pinafore claim. '

The case was adjourned until Wednesday next when probably the case and also the objection to the Pinafore license will be settled in the Warden's! Court. GrBEENVILLE V. TETLEY AND OTHEJtS. This was an application by Mr Greenville that the City of Bedford claim— worked by Messrs F. Tetley, W. Tetley, Collins, and Fife—should be forfeited, as no work has been done by the defendants in the claim since July, the claim not being protected during that time. It appears that Tetlpy spo ke to the Underviewer re protection, but failed to obtain an order. The case was heard, but judgment was deferred until after the hearing of Deeble's case, to decide a question of priority of application. WILLIAM: DEEBLE V, TETLEY. This was another application by Mr Deeble that the City of Bedford claim be forfeited, owing to the parties having stopped working. W. Deeble deposed that on the 6th of December last he took out a miner's right, and informed the Clerk that he

wished to take possession of the City of i Bedford claim, Hape Creek, as it had not I been worked for over two months. Mr Burgess informed him that the. name of the holder of the mine was still on h the list, and advised him to get the shareholders of the claim to sign a notice of abandonment. This he did, and on showing it to Mr Tetley he took it into another room and signed it. He then aiked Tetley where his mates were, but found that two of them were away, and he did not know where the other was. Finding that he could not get their signatures, he came back to Mr Burgess, who, as he could not put him in possession, advised him to see Mr McLaren, which he did. McLaren told him that he could not forfeit the ground without seven day's notice. Mr McLaren then gave him a notice to take to Mr Tet!ey, and on serving him with it, Mr Tetley said he was not going to sign any more papers, as he did not know what he ( was signing in the morning, and that he j was not goiog to give up the ground, but! after a conversation with Mr McLaren, he consented to give up the ground, and asked him (Mr Deeble) to give him a share in the ground, and he replied that he might have a show for a share. He left Mr Tetley with a full understanding that he would give up possession. When lie went to Mr McLaren he found that he had received a letter from Mr Tetley, j which took it entirely out of his hands. He then laid a plaint, which was the only course left open for him to pursue. . By Mr Cuff-—I am the only plaintiff in the case as yet.

Mr Burgess gave corroborative evidence.

- Mr McLaren gave corroborative evidence, in the course of which he said it was his opinion the shareholders could not have continued working. Wm. Hearn, deposed that he had worked in the mine in question, and there was gold on both sides of the slide which stopped Mr Tetley. He had been a tributer for two years in the mine adjoining the one in question, and as far as he knew, the mine could have been worked all the time pay ably.

Robert McCormick, deposed that he had worked in the City of Bedford claim with Mr Tetley. They had driven up to the slide but)had not gone through. He did not think they would have picked up the reef on the other side of the slide.

F. Tetley deposed that he did nofc : sign the paper handed to him by Mr Deeble because he could neither read nor write, but got someone else to sign it for him. Mr Greenville had promised him a share if he succeeded in his application. G. Wilson said he thought the reef in question could not be worked without draining. He thought the shareholders were justified it stopping work until they could find some better means of draining the mines.

After Mr Cuff had addressed the Court on behalf of Mr Greenville, the Warden in summing up said he had first to decide whose was the first application—that of* Mr Greenville or Mr Deeble. He decided that Mr Greenville had no right to make any application until the proceedings instituted by the Inspector had lapsed. He declared forfeited the shares held by Messrs Tettey, Collins, and Fife, and allowed Mr F. Tetley to hold his share, awarding the other three shares to the two applicants. Costs were ordered to be paid by Mr Tetley, £3 8s in the first case, and £1 10s'in'the,second.

Mr Deeble subsequently sold his share to Mr Greenville. The claim will be forthwith re-pegged and re-named. The Court then adjourned. .