WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 197, 9 November 1871, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., Warden.) Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday.

Higgins v. Dyer. — Higgins was the original prospector of the Ocean View Claim at the Canada Reef, Table Hill, and had marked out the ground and applied for a lease! He had, however, failed to comply with the letiter of the regulations, which describe the manner in which such ground should be marked out. Dyer, taking advantage of this, pegged put a quartz claim on this ground. It was argued for the defendant that this disentitled Higgins to maintain an action of trespass. On the other, it was argued that this was not fatal, and that the ground was protected from the time of the deposit of the application. Mr. M'Coy appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gooday for defendants.

Dyer v. Higgins. — This was a cross caae of the earn© nature, and reste on the same points of law.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gooday for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for the defendant.

Smith v. JP.ym and Others. — The complainant had, on the 16th October, pegged out ground, and applied for a

lease on the 19th. Previously to this, the defendants had pegged off 6 men's ground within the Bame area, but bad not completed the pegging until the ,18th. It was argued for the defendants that the plaintiff was not protected till he lodged his application, and that there could be no trespass previously by contra on the other side.

In these three cases the arguments almost entirely rested on the constructiou of the 108 th section of the Goldfields Act, 1866, and the 4tb, Bth and 9th clauses of the Gold Mining Lease Eegulations. The decision in all was reserved until the 15tb.

Mr. Taylor and Mr. Gooday appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendants. [We will publish a full report of the above cases in our next issue.]