WARDEN'S COURT.—This Day.

Thames Star, Volume XIII, Issue 4323, 8 November 1882, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.—This Day.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) JAMES GOODWIN V. EDWABDS. Action for forfeiture of the Qaeen of Trumps Claim for non-working. Mr Miller for plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that the claim is situated on the Collarbone near the Seymour. He had seen no work done on it. Mr Edwards deposed he marked out the claim, and had done a little prospecting. Was using all due diligence to form a company, as individual miners could not work it. A pick had not been put in the ground for fourteen years until he did. He wished to amalgamate the Queen of Trumps/20 men's ground,aad the Smiling .Beauty,*23 Even's ground, and put down a main shaft. The mine was marked out on September 7. His Worship said Mr Edwards' reasons might have been good for protection, but very bad against forfeiture. Defendant said he was prepared to deal with four men's ground. Mr Miller said he would not take an order if Mr Edwards was admitted a partner. Finally the Warden awarded Mr Edwards one man's share, 19 20ths of the Queen of Trumps claim and 22»23rds of tbe Smiling Beauty Claim. Cos's against defendant. H. E. CAMPBELL V. P. K. DONNELLY. The plaintiff applied for a license for the Welcome ground, but defendant opposed, firstly because he was a partner, secondly because when pegged out the mine had not bren abandoned. Mr Miller for defendant. P. K. Donnelly deposed—The Welcome claim adjoics the Prince Imperial and the Mariner. Pegged it out in September, and spoke to Mr Campbell abo«t it, who told him to go to Mr Jackson and get it surveyed. Pointed out the boundaries to Mr Jackson. Mr Campbell was to pay for the license and survey, and to. have half the claim. Gave notice of pegging on behalf of both. Mr Jackson said there were 22 men's ground, and witness told him to make it in 20 men's ground. About a week after that Mr Campbell told witness he had better go to the Court and abandon the claim at once. Witness did so. Never at aoy time parted with his interest to Mr Campbell. Abandoned it bteause he thought Mr Campbell did not intend to take out the license. Pegged it out about ten days afterwards, but did not intend to take Mr Campbell in. Mr Campbell did not tell him after he had abandoned the ground that he was going to send Jackson to survey it. His Worship ruled that there was no partnership existing between the parties. Mr Campbell deposed that before the abandonment Donnelly informed him several times that he did not think the ground was worth sticking to. Witaess replied that if Donnelly would not go in, that was no reason why he should not go in himself. Witness signed the notice of abandonment which Donnelly had given, also gave notice of pegging on the 23rd. Donnelly was perfeclly cognizant of what was done, they had not had words up to that time. Told Donnelly why it was worth taking up and why he should have an interest. Lindsay Jackson, surveyor, deposed to marking out the Welcome ground on Mr Campbell's account, and Donnelly went upand showed pegs. Ten or eleven the days afterwards he pegged it out himself. ! When he went to peg the Welcome Mr Donnelly said tiis was the last transaction he would have with Mr Campbell as he had enough of him. Did the survey oa tbe 20th. Did not make a plan of the first surrey, 42 men's ground, because Mr Campbell soon afterwards in^ structed him to cut it down to 20 men's ground ;of this latter he made a plan. It was the ground shown on this plan that he re-pegged for Mr Campbell, because the ten days had expired. Afterwards reduced this to 16 men's ground. The ground was awarded to plaintiff, the Warden being of opinion that no partnership existed, and Mr Jackson's evidence showed, Donnelly had no intention of continuing business relations with Mr Campbell. The plaintiff had intended to evade the regulations by re-pegging, but had

only escaped by/ as it happened, applying for a new claim of 16 men's ground. Costs against defendant, £5 16s.