WARDGN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XIV, Issue 4440, 29 March 1883, Page 2

WARDGN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) The followiug cases were disposed of this moinins :—

Mining lispector v. H. 0. Wick; an edjourned case. —The defendant had applied to the Government to remit the reat sued for, but without success. Judg. meut waß given for £60, the rmomt claimed, with costs, 13s

Same ,y. N. Dickey.—Claim for £2, rent unpaid. Judgment for amount, with 19s costs.

Srme v. Thomas Keelan. —A claim for £2, rent. Judgment for amount a-id costs 22s 6d.

Same v. C. Forbes —A. claim for £5, unpaid rent. Judgment for amount nd costs 18s 6d.

Same v. J. Gardner.—A claim for £4 rent ia arrear. Judgment for amount, and costs 235.

Same v. Arthur JSTeal.—A claim for £2, arrears of rent. Judgment for amount, and costs 13s.

i Srme v. Thos. Glosson.—A claim for i£3 for non-payment of rent. Judgment for amount, and costs 15s.

Same v. Phi'ip Kendall; a claim for £7, rent unpaid. Judgment for amouit, md costs 13s.

Same v. Honora McMrnus ; a claim for £4, prreavs of rent. Judgment for amou it s and costs 13s, execution I o be stayed for 4 weeks.

Same v. Jno. Noble; a claim for £4, rent in arrears. Judgment for £4, and costs 13s.

Same v. John Logan; a claim for £5, rent. Judgment for amount,end coptsl3=i.

Same v. Phoenix Gr M. Co.—A claim for £40, rent of a machine si c. The late manager wrote stating that the Company had been wound up some years ago.~ The manager said there, was machinery on the ground, r.nd withdrew the case in order to take other stops for the recovery of the amount due.

Same v. Luck's All G-.M. Oo.—CUim £1, for unpaid rent. Adjourned for a month to prove incorporation of the Company. Same v. j* (fred Shepherd.—A claim for £5, rent of a business, Judgment for amount claimed, and costs, 13s.

J. McCombie v J. McDonough. Mr Miller appeared for the plan f iff, md Mr Campbell for the defendant. The defendant was called upon to sustain his objections to a license being granted to the plaintiff, empowering him to occur)y land at Karangahako, for gold* mining purposes. The defendant objected, on the ground that part of the land for which a license was sought to be obtained was included in a claim held by him. The defendant swore that the ground known as the. Katipo claim had been awarded him by the bourt, and he had caused it to be marked out, and the ground marked out, as the Mercury Company is the same as that previously known as the Katipo. The ground know.i as the Kenil worth takes iv the greater part of the old" Kafipo claim. He knew this on account of it being bounded by the Hidden Treasure, which he had learnt by enquiry at the Registrar's Office. The Katipo boundaries go up to the bound/nies of the Hidden Treasure and Martha claims.. Afler the claim was awarded, Mr Lipsey shewed him t!ie Mercury _claimwhich he(Mr Lipeey.) had~^peg?ed out for him. The The KaLipo was bounded on the south* west by the Hidden Treasure.

Frederick Lipsey had pegged out the Katipo claim, iinew ell the pegs. Pegged out the Mercury claim at McDonough's request, and drew in one of the tar pegs. The notice of pegging out was put in by McDonough on his. des» cription. John McWillisms was with him wheu the Katipo claim was marked off. Knew the Martha, Hidden Treasure, Little Lizzie, Golden Crown, and Keepit'Dark claims. Pegged the Little Lizzie, adjoining the Katipo. When he pegged tbe Mercury ground he put a peg in outside the K:uipo boundary. The mark on the pegs was N. The mark shown in the

Katipo application by McWilliams, -—, was, he believed, incorrect. Recognised the Katipo pegs by the Mark **.

H. T. Bowe deposed that he had surveyed the Mercury claim, and was shown pegs by Lipsey and McDonough, and deposed a^ to the correctness of the plan produced by him. ..'... Charles Me Williams swore that he wa» present when Frederick Lipsey and John Me Williams ma-ked off the Katipo claim,»was also present at the Mercury marking. The pe;s put in each claim were in the same places. There might have been more pe*s put than he saw. The witness described who the pegs iv the two claims were put in by, and their situation.

John Me Williams swore thathe assisted ia marking out the Katipo claim, and had seen the pegs of the Mercury ground; they were nearly in the same position. There were five pegs put in the Katipo ground. Did not know of his own knowledge that a piece of ground had bee a cut off the Katipo. Did not know the boundaries of any of the claims. The mark on the pegs were N (line under.) The mn.rk == in the application was a mistake.

[Left Sitting.]