WARDENS COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3956, 2 September 1881, Page 4

WARDENS COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) HEABN AND OTHEES V. W. 8. GEEENVILIE. This case, which was adjourned last Friday week to allow the Warden to consider the evidence, was called on for judgment. The Warden said in this case the plaintiffs claimed damages, caused by defendant refusing to carry out his portion of-the tribute agreement; whereby they were prevented from working, and had been put to unnecessary expense to keep the tribute. The plaintiffs had deposed that defendant could have started Sumping two days after the flood, but he id not think the agreement bound the defendant to see to the tributers' interests before his own, and he therefore held that the 10 days spent by him in effecting repairs was but a reasonable time. It would have been all right had defendant started pumping then, but this he would not do, thinking that his notice of re-entry on the mine would hold good. As he had already ruled, this was not the case, and defendant was therefore liable for the damages incurred from that time through his refusal to pump. The question as to how much the tributers were justified in claiming was a hard one to decide, but he had arrived at the conclusion that he could not award damages for the loss of time unless it could be proved

conclusively that the plaintiffs would have got payable quartz if they had been working. This question was impossible to decide, for the gold might come to an end at any tune. He would not therefore award any damages for loss of time, but considered that the defendant was liable for the amount expended unprofitably by the plaintiffs in order to keep to the terms of the agreement. He would, therefore, give jndgment against the defendant for £13 15s, being the amount of six men's wages at £2 5s each for one week, and costs, £16 ss. „, ..KILtEE. T. MUNG-OYAN. This was an application* for the forfeiture of defendant's interest in a piece of ground at Waitekauri, pegged out as the Bank of Scotland.

Mr:: Miller' said he had brought this case to get rid of defendant's interest. He called Mr Corbett, who deposed that he was in Court ou the day when defenddant gave evidence in the case of Hollis r. Scanlan. He heard defendant say that he had abandoned the Bank of Scotland claim, and had left the district. Application for forfeiture refused, on j the ground that there was no existing ! right to.forfeit. SAME Y. BROWN AND COBBETT. This was an application for the forfeiture of some surplus ground now contained in the licensed holding known as the Waitekauri No. 3. A second plaint was laid for the forfeiture of the same piece of ground for non-working. Mr Miller said he bad brought this action to secure the title of the defendants. The Warden adtised Mr Miller to let the defendants bring the action themselves, as he could not award the ground to any one claiming it on behalf of the defendants. Mr Miller agreed to this, and the case was adjourued for a week to give the defendants time to lay the plaint. If it is your purpose in life to make your face your fortune you must look well to it or it will turn out to be your misfortune.