WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 4028, 25 November 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.)

DAVID E. GKLIiION V. B. DOWKIE

This case was adjourned by mutual consent untill the sth of January, 1882. TAUGHAN V. MCDONOUGH AND B. JONES.

This was a plaint for the forfeiture of the Pride of Owharoa Claims Owharoai on the ground of non-working^ ; Mr Vaughan proved the service of the summons. The claim has not been continuously worked. M Mr Wilson said that only about a week's work had been done in the ground. One man could have done all tbe work in that time. There is no one else in posses^ sion of the ground. It has not been worked for a month. McDonough was up .at Owharoa, and Jones was at the lakes. He was interested in the ground with Mr Vaughan. j Mr Vaughan said it was the intention of the parties interested to apply for the amalgamation of the two claims Pride of Owharoa and Land League. Were this done McDonough would have a share. He would not have an interest in the present claim without he liked to give it him. Mr Burgess produced the registry of the Pride of Owharoa claim. A. license was applied for by Matthew Vaughau. After putting in the application they found the claim included the present ground in dispute, which had not been abandoned.

His Worship said that tbe claim would be awarded to the plaintiff. In

future when there, was any £olj^^^^| between the plaintiff' and defendantT^^^H suspicion ot^such, he should refus^^^f application for forfeiture, as such h^^^J fraudulent action, and an order mad^^H it could be set aside hereafter. It wajj^H common thiDg on the gold field foramina! when afraid of losing his ground through^ non-working, to get a friend to bring ah action against him for forfeiture, and then get the ground back. That is entirely a fraudulent collusion, and one which was. not legally valid. KELLY V. WALKEB. This was a plaint calling upon John Watson Walker to sustain his objestion to the license of the Surprise claim,, Waitekauri. The objection filed by the defendant was. that the ground-had been awarded to him in the action Walker v. Shaw, affecting the former Etlipse claim v Mr Cuff appeared for the plaintiff, and' Mr Miller in support of the objection.', After hearing the evidence of'the Mining. Registrar and Mr Kelly, the case was . adjourned until the Ist December. „