WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume XVII, Issue 5196, 11 September 1885, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS PAY. (Before H. Kenrick, Esq., Warden.) SiioDaßAss t. McLean.—A plaint asking for the forfeiture of the Commotion CJlaim, Karangabake, pegged out by defendant, on the ground of non»workinc. There was no appearance for defendant. The plaintiff deposed that the ground had not been worked, and that he had made no promise to give defendant a share-in the claim. Was a partner of McLean's in the Melrose claim; was partner with Mcjjean in no other claim.—The claim was forfeited and awarded tp Spodgrass, who was told by the Warden that he would have to work the ground, no protection would be granted, and this decision was given on the distinct understanding that MpLean had, no interest in the plaint lodged. Costs, I^3. ' : ' Btan t. Cobnjss and Banks. —This was a plaint asking for the forfeiture of the Minister of Mines ciainj, Waihi, for nonworking. CA.Corces one of the defendants deposed that be had been misled in mark? ing out the claim owing to the manager of the Martha Extended shewing him wrong boundary pegs, the latter then pegged five men's ground out over his, and hence defendant did not work tbe ground. The plaintiff—-it was discovered—had no Miners Right when be iocfged the plaint and consequently he was nonsuited and the plaint dismissed. Me Williams v. Topping.—-Plaint ask ing jthat the Ellen claim be forfeited and awarded tp him on the ground of nonWorkinf?. Mr Miller appeared foj> the plaintiff. There wa3 no afpeavance for defendant. Thie plaint wa3 complied with, mi the ground awarded to plaintiff. costs m

Coenes y. Holms. Plaint t'ojf... tug forfeiture of the Just-io-Time claim Waihi on the ground of rionworking. After hearing the plaintiff, the Court declared the pl'iim forfeited and awarded it to him. MIHI»#'INS£E£JTQB J. P^ESCOTT. —A plaint asking that the sppiiaant for the No Name claim, Mauaia, sbouUl be declared guilty of a breach of the KegiiUtions by not register ing tha plaim as required. Defendant fras o'ied' 3Qi aud eo=ts, j§j, iNs^EcroK y. THOMAB — Summons for neglecting to register a claim called the '4.j|ekjand Pyrites lOlaim, Karaka Creek. ~«-Fined &$ and cosig. Inspectoh v. McLean,—A proseea'tjou for non-registratiou of the Melrose claim. Karangahake, The claim had becu fur. feitedi awarded to Jaioe* B<iggott, and

defendant sated that he was under the | impression that the ground was abau« ' donee! by him. Under the circumstances, the Bench thought the case would be met by inflicting a fine of Is and coats. ■■■■■;, lKßPisciott v. BffßNa— V sapmons for nou registration of the New York elsiitn, Tararu. Defendant pleaded inability to register through want of means. The Mining Inspector did not press for a penalty as he believed tite defendant was not well acquainted -rith the law, and Ind lately been ill. Fined Is, and expenses Is.

Inspector v. Mulligan."Summons for non registration of Wia^rd claim, Karang'ihskf? The claim bad'been" forfeit cd. and awarded to James Goodwin. Fined Is, arid costs 18x. CoB«E8"v?-M*etfMBiE.^Piisiht liiaskinß that tlu.< .Kilvertcn eiaiiu situated atWailii; should be granted to Cornea, owing to defendant not having properly pegged the cluim. out. —Mr Miller appeared for the plaintiff, asid-Mr Lush fcr^Uie, defendant. •^Mf .Miller pointed ontj regulations re-' quiring v'that the angles "of the ground should be shown, and pegs of ceriairi siize ust'd in uisvkitig oat, and the request that plaintiff shou'd he put in possession of the ground should be granted ; he would call evidence to show thai, the pegs were too sra:-ll.—P. A. Burgess, Mining Registrar, deposed that defendant had lodged notices with witness stating that he had marked out the Silverton claim ; the distinguishing" ra#rk on the pegs, used was staled to; be X. 4 Oa 20thi August received an-apA plication for a license for the ground from I defendant.—J H. Moore, sworn, stated that he had marked: out the; Si; Iyer ton' claim for the defendant JoniV the 12th August; .wcs,interested-with- MeCombie inthe ground. Did not mark it out after the 12th. The, peg's used were kauri; they wore between 3 and 4 inchesthick and 3ft. 6in. long ; had measured the pegs since they were put in, and considered thdn up to regulation size ; measured the top of the lower pegs shown on the plan, and tha southernmost peg was, taken all round, 12J inches ; considered it sufficient to have such contents. The western peg Was 2£ -: --.dy 4| inches, measured 14 inches all round.—To Mr Lush : The pegs were clearly obser.yabl& a mile away, some of the pegs were as large as 14 and 14| inches all round the pegs, one peg was 3 inches by 4| inches and another 3| x 3|; was of opinion that the pegs were of regulation size.—C. A. Comes deposed that he bad bsen.oo the SiWerton ground with Mr Bajldon, surveyor, and they measured the southerly and westerly pees they were of split Kauri and marked X. No part of the pe]gs was 3 inches square r>r 3 inches in diameter.—To Mr Lush : Had other ground to work something under 500 acres. Went to measure the pegs because he: bought ah interest in an adjoining claim and it overlapped it. Did not know that Mr MeCombie had done all the work on hia (Gomes') claim. Did not measure more than two pegs; saw nothing wrong with the pegs beyond the fact that they were too small one wa y.—D. H. Bayldon, surveyor, sworn, stated that he had been engaged by the plaintiff to measure the two pegs previously referred to; they were made of split kauri slabs, the southern and western pegs; the former was 2f inches and 2| inches on two t.ides, and/4J inches and 4 inches on the other two ; the peg was slightly smaller at the bottom than at the top. The western peg showed 2|incbes and 2f inches on one side, and 3i inches and 4J inches on the other. A peg 3 inches square could not be taken out of either of them. To the Bench: The pegs were sufficiently prominent.—Tbis was the case for the plaintiff.—For the defence Mr Lush called L. Jackson, surveyor, who said that he had the measurements of the pegs of the Silverton claim, and he considered that the pegs on the claim were

full measurement. The pegs were plainly discernible, conspicuous, and fairly sized ; they contained more timber above the ground than he would use for pegging. The claim was in • bare country. The pegs were of a size that if they had been sawn down square, they would hare been 3x3 Considered a peg 2| x 3w could "be called 3 inches in diameter; its contents were the same.— J. M McOtfmbie, defendant, deposed that he had applied for a license for the 'ground, and be intended to work it; he and a party, of six had driven 500 feet in it. Applied for a license before the plaint was laid. Bid not measure the pegs, but complied with all the regulations.—D. H. Bayldon, re-called, stated he considered a peg 3 inches in diameter meant one that would measure throe inches on any side. —Mr Lush admitted that two pegs were a.little under size, but this was. the only : thing upon which plaintiff, relied ; everything else had been complied with. The Apt never intended th^at a . private person could come and ask for relief in such an •instance as this, as perhaps, an Inspector might. Equitably his client deserved relief in the case.- Taking all the merits into consideration his client had carried out everything required by the s.pirjt of the Apt, and the pegs complained of stood out. prominently. Some latitude should be allowed in this case as all the witnesses admitted that the pegs were clearly digtinguishablo and every other thing roquiredhad been done by the defendant. Mr Miller replied and stated that this was not a mere breech of the regulations, but a very important violation to the Act, the law said ground should bs marked but aocordiug to the Act, with certain sized posts at each angle of the ground, this bad not been done aud he contended thai the defendant had not recognised this proviso and therefore had no legal title to the ground, and his client was entitled to the claim. The Bench said jfc was shewn that del'en dant Lad done ail that was necessary to carry out the law iyitli the exception of the aizo of the pegs referred to ; the law stated that the ground must be marked off in a cprfain manner, and with pegs of a certain ■jjiga. The evidence djd not requiFe much goiug ■jnto.-as defendant admitted tho size, but through inadyertanee the pegs were not in accordance with law, therefore the defendanfc/iiad; legally failed to establish a title to jhe ground, A felons of omission were uotV defence. A Warden has no discretion, and he must hold that as a claim the defendant did not validate his title. Assuming that ha could not, the Warden could say Ue wag n^ iti pos: session of r'the s»rou/id illegally, and all persons searching Fqr golii. if nthey wish exclusive title iaust put up their pegs, ; Therefore the plaintiff found the defeudant in legal occupation, but had no legaltitle to exclusive occupation; but the plaintiff did nothifigrs'ie sa^uV Inj3 Ejan (defendant) is hep, and I want to turn him off. Jn equity the defendaot had the title to take up the claim. He would refuse the appiipaii- » wiili costs i}j. The defendant' was legally in posseesjon of the ground, but not an a claim, md if < he took itacjtdiute steps 'ia ppg yut tiiO

ground he would make his title to it good. 'The Court then rose.