WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 278, 29 May 1873, Page 5

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before Vincent Pyke, Esq., Warden.) Friday, May 16. Laivson v. Morrison& Co. and Clayton & Co. — This ca3e had been adjourned to obtain th« evidence of J, H. Pressly, Gardener, who now deposed that about 18 months ago he was asked by Mr. Lawson to estimate the value of damage and cost of making a new garden, and removing trees for him at the Spur, and the estimate was based upon the calculation of a complete renewal of a garden similar to the one damaged. Judgment reserved till Friday next. Mar Xi On v. James <6 Joseph Grundj. — This was an action of dissolution of partnership Mr. Gooday for plaintiff. The defendants denied that any partnership existed. Alar Xi On deposed to having made an agreement with the defendants to work a claim at Waitahuna, the produce to be equally divided between the Chinamen ; and when the Grundys used horses and drays, each horse was to represent a similar share. Besides the equal shares of the Grundys, they were to receive three shillings in the £ from the Chinamen as tribute They washed up about 8 days ago, when the Grundys gave a notice to the Chinamen to discontinue. A paddock was then partly completed, and from which they had not received any proceeds. John Grundy admitted the agreement with plaintiff and party. Before giving plaintiffs' the notice referred to, they had left the claim without telling us of their intention to do so, and we did not wish to deprive them of their share in the unfinished paddock. Judgment was as follows : — Defendants to pay £6 to plaintiffs on account of difference of wages ; Chinamen ordered to wash up the unfinished paddock, the proceeds to be divided as before, after deducting all costs in the case. After the washing of this paddock, the partnership shall be dissolved. A. M'Kinlay's application for an agricultural lease was granted. Wm. Abernethy's application for a residence area was granted.

Friday, May 23. Lawson v. Clayton & Co. and Morrison & Co. His Worship gave judgment in favor of the defendants in this case, with costs of Court, and £2 2*. professional fee. Mr. Copland entered an appeal to the District Court against the decision.