WARDEN'S COURT. THIS DAY.

Thames Star, Volume XV, Issue 4678, 4 January 1884, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT. THIS DAY.

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Wardens) NON-PAYMENT OF KENT.

Mining Inspector v. G. J. Stone and E. A, White.—This was a claim for" £10, rent due on a machine site at Karangahake, and the case was adjourned for a week oh account of ttie summons having been only served yesterday. A similar case for £10, against the .Waihi G.M. Co., was also adjourned for i a week on the same grounds. MINING INSPECTOR V. DIYIS, _ A charge of unlawfully cutting timber ! within the goldfields district. The defendant pleaded ignorance of the fact that the timber was cut within the i gpldfteld. Wikiriwhi Hautonga deposed that the defendant had cut timber near the Komata Creek, on land situated within the Hauraki gold fields district, leased to natives for mining purposes. The defendant on being sworn stated that he cut about 1000 posts and rails for Tukukino and other natives, but he was not aware that the place he had removed them from belonged to the goldfield ; he had been told that the land was part of a native reserve. Paratu Kapana said he knew the block was in the goldfield, but Mr James Mackey, the Government Agent, had told the natives that any timber required for their own use for fencing or building could be taken by them without a license, bufc for the purpose of selling timber a license

liould be t«ken out. On these conditions , the land had been ported with by th 6 natives ; he was a parfc owner of the land until it went through the Court. The Court decided that a license should be paid for the timber already,cut, and if any more should be cut a license should be taken out for if. If it is discovered when the land goes through the Court that Eapana owns the land he will receive his money back. Davis would be fined in the nominal penalty of Is for an in« fringemeut of the law, and a license would have to be taken out from the date when the cutting of timber commenced. It was pointed out that Davis' contract was completed, and he did not require a license.

The case was adjourned for a week, to enable defendant to take out a license, and if he did so the penalty would : ;be as above, with costs 355; if not the fine would be £5, the cost of a license, which Eapana agreed to pay for. "