WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3958, 5 September 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

i THIS DAY. ! (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) V NOETHEY AND OTHEHB T. WHISKEB AND i OTHEBB. I This was a plaint claiming damages for encroachment by the defendants on plain tiffs ground. Mr Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr Miller for the defendants.—All witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr Miller objected to the license of the West,CoastGM; Co.'s grou'nfailjeiifg pat in evidence, on the ground that it was not properly witnessed.—Overruled. R. McDonald rreott, sworn,; deposed-4^ He produced the license of the West Coast Gr.M. Co., and also an application for a tribute in thai company by the plaintiff, which was agreed to at a. meeting of the company held on the same dayj as the application was received. Mr Miller objected to the minutes of that meeting being put in evidence, as it was not stamped according to the Act.— Objection upheld. '■''''"' The minute granting the application of Northey and party, which was put in in March, 1880, was confirmed on the 12ch June of the same year. He produced the deed of assignment granting the ground in question to Northey and party. (A plan of the ground showing the extent of the tribute section was then put into Court.) Before the assignment wad granted, the company received percentage from Northey and party. Mr Miller then raised a law point that the tributers had no right to take these 'proceedings, they haying at the time the gold claimed is alleged to have been taken out (May and June, 1881), not been the owners of the ground by assign^ ment, and only holding the ground by a tribute agreement, which was 'not, as it should have been, made by deed. His Worship said ihere was no doubt that the plaintiffs had no legal right to take action, but they certainly had an equitable right to do so.' Mr Brassey then made an application to amend the plaint to bring in the West Coast Company with the tribute party as' plaintiffs ■ A Mr Miller agreed to this. 1 Mr Scott, as the representative of the company, then objected to this being done without an adjournment being granted. The case was t therefore adjourned for one week, plaintiff being ordered to pay the cos's, which came to £2 Is. Court adjourned.