WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4417, 1 March 1883, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAT,

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

J. M, McCombie t. W. Dodd.^-Ari application to be put in possession of the Golden Point claim at Earangahake, owing to non-working by the ; holder. —The applicant said the claim was taken up last October by Dodd, who had been there only twice during thelast month. Saw no one. there. No work; was* done. Do not want to use the ground, but merely required it to make the title of some adjoining laDd purchased secure. The boundaries of the defendant's claim were so badly defined that he did not know where defendant might go to, — The defendant stated that he had fixed and pegged out the ground before October last. Had done over 6 weeks' work since that time. There was one drive in the ground put in by him over 225 feet long. —/The Warden forfeited the ground and told the defendant he could apply for all the ground thrown off by the plaintiff. Same v. same. —This was an application to have the Cumberland claim, Earangahake, forfeited. The circum« stances were similar to those in the last case, and the Warden made a like order.

J. Me Williams v. J. Fleetwood and Others.—Mr Miller for the plaintiff.— This was an action for a dissolution of a partnership, and that monies paid by the plaintiff on account of it should be refunded to him, and for the disposal of any goods of the partnership—The plaintiff deposed that he was a partner ia a tribute in connection with the Karangahake licensed holding; the tribute included the right to use the battery. At the request of the defendants, who were partners of his, he procured two bullocks for the purpose of sledging quartz to the battery. Told the defendants they would have to pay for the bullocks at the same rate as previous tributers had done. Engaged the bullocks and sleigh for. 30s per day. They worked 18 days. On the 18th day one of them was killed, and witness- had to pay £13 for it. Paid Mrs Watson £27 for bullock hire. Had settled for his share of accounts for food, and paid his share of Bry son's account for sleighing after the bullock was killed.

Cross-examined by defendant—Mrs Watson, who owned the bullocks, was not his wife, but he was living with her. Agreed to work at sleighing the quartz in place of working below, as he did not care for underground work. If the tribute paid, ifc was agreed to pay for the bullock hire; the bullock was not at work when it was killed.

Re-examined by Mr Miller—The defendants said they would pay for the work done by the bullocks as soon as they could obtain employment; this was when the tribute was being given up. Gave his whole time to working at the tribute. There was no reason existing why he should pay for the bullock hire in addition to giving his labor to the tribute. M. Vaughan swore that about six years ago he owed Mrs Watson money on account of the purchase of a house, and at her request he had paid a native for two bullocks purchased by her.

John Fleetwood stated that in connection with the tribute party consisting of plaintiff, Harry McWiUiams, W. Davis, Geo. Colebrook, Jas. Acton, Geo. Cox, and the witness. The arrangement as to the work to be done by the plaintiff was that he would work the two bullocks, which he said belonged to him, until such- time as the tribute would pay, the hire should then be paid by the party. Me Williams had objected to work below. The bullocks were often idle. The plaintiff was living with Watson and his wife, while the' party had the tribute. Mo William 8 had said he would not have brought this case had witness not sued him for his share of a tucker account; The bullock was supposed to have been poisoned by a native plant, and had died near the whare. He did not believe it had broken its neck. None of the party had, to his knowledge, agreed to pay for the dead bullock. Witness had paid all his share of accounts against the partner* ship. The bullocks did very little work. Geo. Colebrobk, W. Davies, and J. Acton gave, similar evidence. The Warden said it was clear that the agreement had been made to pay for the bullock hire incase the tribute turned out well, but not otherwise. As to the money alleged to have been paid for the dead bullock, the plaintiff had paid that at his own risk. He was not bound to pay Mrs. Watson for it. As no statement of lia«bilities had. been placed before him, he could make no order regarding the partnership. The application was then dis» missed.