WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 4018, 14 November 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before H.Kenrick, Esq., K.M.) MUBDOCH V. MORTON AND OTHEBS. This case was a plaiot for the forfeiture of a portion of the Bright Smile Claim at Waihi, that portion, not having been included in the license obtained, and not having been worked. The case had been previously heard, and was adjourned for judgment. Mr Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Cuff for Mr Hollis, who had applied for a license for the same ground as the Transit. As the plaintiff in this case had lodged an objection to the license applied for the Transit, and had been summoned to prove his objection, it was decided to let the case stand over till that case was heard. HOLIIS V. MUBDOCH AND lEYDON. In this case the plaintiff summoued the defendants to prove the objection they had lodged to the granting of the license for the Transit claim. Mr Cuff appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Brassey for the defendants. Mr Brassey applied for an adjournment, as he had been unable to obtain two important witnesses—Morton and Creighton.

E. Murdoch deposed that he served Creighton with a subpoena on last Friday. As Creighton did not appear when he was called, the Warden fined him £5 for non-appearance, unless within a fortnight from date he showed a good reason why he did not appear. The case was then adjourned for a fortnight, costs to the amount of £4 17s being allowed to the plaintiff. In granting these costs the Warden said they could be recovered by the defendants against Creighton, as it was solely on accouut of his non-appearance that the adjournment was granted. Judgment in the case of Murdoch v. Mortou and others was also adjourned for a fortnight. HOtllS V. lEYDON. This was a similar case to the last, defendant being summoned to prove his objection to the granting of the license for the Transit claim, his objection being that he was entitled to have a share in the ground. Mr Cuff appeared for the plaintiff, and I Mr Miller for the defendant. i John Leydon, sworn, deposed—He knew the Transit claim at Waihi, and remembered the ease of B. Nicholls v. Smith and others, in connection with that ground. Previous to this Nicbolls came to him and told him that he was going to Waihi, where he had something good. He then asked witness to assist him with money, and he would give him a half share in the claim. Witness gave him 30s, but afterwards received £1 back again. A case was subsequently brought by IS icholls, and the ground in question awarded to him He had asked to be recognised as a shareholder in the ground, Nicholl had given him an agreement (produced) showing that he had an interest in the ground. It was on this agreement that he brought these proceedings. His Worship held that tbt objection to the license had not been upheld, defendant having no claim against Hollis, though he had a plaia right to half of JSficholls'

shnre. Costs would be allowed to the amount of £2 17s 6d. J MCILHANEY V. 3. HOOBE. This was a plaint for the forfeiture of the Mint claim at Waitekauri on the ground of non-workiDft. Plaintiff proved that no work had been done on the ground. , The defendant had filed a notice of abandonment after the plaint was laid, so ■ the Warden held that was sufficient proof that the defendant had no intention of holding the ground, which would therefore be declared forfeited and awarded to the plaintiff. ». o'BEIEN V. H. MCDONNELL. A plaint to obtain possession of some surplus ground thrown off the Manakau claim at Waitekauri, that portion not being included in the application for a license. Mr Miller appeared for the adjoining claimholders, and said the ground iii question had already been taken up. ~ The defendant deposed that he marked off the Manukau claim at Waitekauri on the 12th October, and applied for a license for 30 men's ground, which was surveyed by Mr Bay Id on. The. claim he first marked out contained much more that 30 men's ground. He had no intention of holding this surplus ground. No other plaint than the present one had been laid against him for it. Mr Miller contended that a person"* only taking up a portion of a claim by a license practically abandoned the rest. His Worship upheld this contention, and said that in a case like the present the first person who pegged out the surplus ground after the survey was made had the best title to it. The date when the ground was abandoned was the 26th October. The application would be refused, there being no existing right to forfeit. Court adjourned to 2 o'clock.