WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 135, 8 September 1870, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq, Warden.) Monday, Sept. 5. Downie v. Chinese. — This was an action to recover damages for certain holes dug on the agricultural lease of the plaintiff, also for breach of agreement. Mr. M'Coy for plaintiff, and Mr. Gooday for defendant.

Mr. M'Coy stated that on the 16th A ugußt an agreement was entered into under the cognizance of the Court, by which the Chinese were allowed to sink six prospecting holes within certain prescribed boundaries, and to deposit £10 as security for any damage they might do. Instead of sinking six, they had sunk nine holes, some of them outside the prescribed limits. They had imperfectly filled them up ; in such a manner in fact that within a short time they would be far below the surface of the surrounding ground ; and he was in a position to prove that the holes were half full of water prior to their being filled — a fact which was sufficient to show the state in which they would shortly be.

As His Worship had visited the ground there' would probably be but little difficulty about the matter. He called the plaintiff, who deposed to the above facts ; also Mr. Thompson, who had visited the ground, and stated that the holes were not properly filled ; that they would sink after rain fall, and that they were nine in number.

In Cross-examination by Mr. Gooday, this testimony was unshaken.

For the defence, Mr. Gooday called Mr. Campbell, who stated that he had visited the ground and found only six holes. One was only "a spit " deep ; it was half full of water, but he did not measure its depth. He had estimated the amount of damage which he found, to come to 3s 9d. The holes were all well filled. He understood both mining and agriculture, and spoke from experience. His Worship said that he had seen the ground, and, after the evidence given, he he would find for the plaintiff damages £5 and costs. The Chinese had undoubtedly broken their agreement, and had not properly filled the holes, but the amount which plaintiff wanted to recover was almost as much too large as the amount which defendants were willing to pay too small. The judgment he hAd just given he thought met the case.