WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3940, 15 August 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) KICHOLIS V. NICHGLLS AND MAKJUBY. In this case Mr Miller, who appeared for the defendants, asked that the case be adjourned till the 25th inst.—Case adjourned accordingly. POTTEE V. POBTEE. This case was also adjourned^ to the 18th, on the application of Mr Cuff. FKASEB V. iIUL;LI&AN.;-'-* This was an application for the forfeiture of a portion of a piece of ground at Wailekanri, on the ground of non-work-ing/ Plaintiff said defendant wanted him to get possession of a piece of surplus grouud. Defendant had pegged out a piece of ground, and afterwards found that he had more than he wanted, and plaintiff therefore took steps to obtain possession of it, as he had a claim alongside this surplus ground. The piece he wanted had not been worked by the defendant. His Worship said defendant had no right to the surplus ground, and he could not therefore declare it forfeited. Plaintiff asked leave to amend the plaint, which was granted. The plaint was then amended by the Court, and the case adjourned to the 26th inst. to enable the amended summons to be served.

PORTER V. W. HOLLIS

This case was a similar one to the last,

An application was made by plaintiff for an adjournment, and as defendant did not appear, it was granted.

GREENVILLE V. .dEAEN & OTHERS

This was an application for damages, as the terms on which the tribute was taken up, it was alleged, had been broken. Mr Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr Miller for defendant.

Mr Miller said the facts were partly admitted by the defendants, and the contention would be as to the construction placed on some clauses of the agreement. A long discussion then took place between Messrs Miller and Brassey, the latter claiming thai, after the defendant had closed his cas6 plaintiff had the right to call rebutting evidence. His Worship said this was not always so, and that in this case if Mr Brassey was going to call evidence, he must do so before Mr Miller called his.

All witnesses were ordered out of Court.

W. S. Greenville, sworn, deposed—He recollected entering into the agreement

now before the Court with the present defendants. By section Bof that agreement he understood that for the privelege of using the engine-shaft for keeping the mine dry, he was to receive od per truck for hauling, after their cutting the No. 2 reef. Since this reef was cut, the winding ijad been done by Mr Deeble by horse lower. He had often spoken to the . '.outers about the winding, and two of tiiem, Messrs Walsh and Moore, had waited on him and asked him to reduce the price of winding from 2s Id per five trucks to Is 9d. Mr Wilson also asked him to agree to this, and he consented. Mr Wilson then said he would call a meeting of the shareholders, and he might count ail differences at an end. When he signed that agreement he certainly understood that he was to receive 5d per truck for all stuff taken out after the No 2 reef was cut. It was also perfectly understood that all the tributers' stuff was to be i wound through the engine shaft by ! him.

By Mr Miller —The engine-shaft is outside the boundaries of the tributers ground. He did not want to be paid for the mullock which had been displaced but not lifted out of the mine. The tributers had been taking the stuff up a whim shaft at the top of a winze. The whim shaft could not have been worked until the No, 2 reef was cut. The tributers could not have worked in the whim shaft without taking some steps to ventilate it. He had worked in the shaft himself by means of air boxes, which were there when the tributers took the mine. The tributers had a right to use all the machinery, and he had given them the right to use the whim shaft. He had been paid for all stuff hauled up the engine shaft, but he sued for the stuff wound up the whim shaft. Re-examined by Mr Brassey —It would be cheaper for the tributers to take the stuff through the engine-shaft. Alex. McCollum, sworn, deposed—He was one of the tributers. From tbe agreement he understood that plaintiff was to do all tbe winding, and get paid for it after No 2 reef was cut. He did not recollect anything being said about plaintiff having to do all the winding. By Mr Miller.—Nothing was said about the whim shaft in his presence.

Chas. Smith, another of the tributers deposed—He understood when he signed the agreement, that the tributers had the right to use the whim shaft for hauling if they chose, without paying plaintiff the 5d per load.

By Mr Miller—They worked in the whim shaft before the connection was made with the engine shaft, but he could not say for how long.

John Billings, F. Telley, and George Tetley were examined for the complainant, which closed his case.

Mr Miller contended there was no case for him to meet, but called Mr Hearn, who gave evidence as to the terms of the agreement and the understanding between the parties.—Messrs Deeble and Wilson also gave evidence, after which Mr Miller addressed the Court.

Mr Brassey replied, after which the Warden gave judgment in favour of the defendant, with costs.