WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 4011, 5 November 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., E.M.)

J. A. E. TUBNER V. FBANCIS CBEIGHTON.

A plaint for the forfeiture of the Golden Point Claim at Waihi on the ground of non working. Mr Cuff for the plaintiff and Mr Brassey,for defendant. J. A. E. Turner, sworn, deposed—He knew the Golden Point claim at Waihi, had been on it himself, could see no signs of work having: been done on it. To Mr Brassey—No one besides himself had any interest in the present case. The pegs were marked F; there was a tunnel near the Golden Point claim in the Sunbeam, but no part of it was in the Golden Point, nor was it going in that direction.

Win, Nicholl deposed that he visited the ground in question in company with last witness. No work had been done on the ground inside the pegs marked F. The tunnel in the Sunbeam ground was not going towards the Golden Point ground. He did not know the surveyed boundary of the Golden Point, but. knew where the pegs marked F were. The Sunbeam claim belonged to defendant as well as the Golden Point. It would take four men about three weeks to put in the tunnel.

R. Mai-jury gate corroborative cvi* dence. He was certain of the bondaries, and no work had been done on the ground. This concluded the case for the prose*, cation.

For the defence, Mr Brassey called Francis Creighton, who deposed that he pegged out the Golden Point claim at Waihi, on the 9th of Jane, and abanddoned it on the 25th of the same month. He re-pegged it on the same day, taking in one man's ground more, which made it 12 men's ground. The tunnel referred to was started, three days after re-pegging; four of them worked at it. It was put in to work the Golden Point ground, and he had always been of opinion that it was in that piece of ground*, J. H. Nickplls also gave evidence. The Warden, in giving judgment, said it was clear the piece of ground in question had not been worked in aouordauce with the Regulations. It was clear the tonnel referred to had been put in to work the Golden Point ground, but that was all the work done on 12 men's ground in five months. He deprecated the too common

practice among miners of pegging out large areas of ground without haviug the slightest intention of working them by the full number of men. It was also a common practice for miners to sell shares in claims to which they had anything but a clear title. He need not tell the legal gentleman what that amounted to. In this case he had decided to forfeit 10 shares of the ground, awarding the defendant the remaining two. He would not have taken this lenient view of the case had it not been for the fact that shares in this claim had already been sold to outsiders. The two men's ground allowed to defendant would be on the side nearest to the tunnel, as that would, naturally be the part most valuable to him.