warden's court, lawrence.

Tuapeka Times, Volume VI, Issue 306, 22 November 1873, Page 3

warden's court, lawrence.

Wednesday, 19th Notembeb. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq.. Warden.) Taylor v. Morrison and Others und Clayton. — His Worship delivered judgment in this case as follows: — The- complainant ia the holder of a miners' right, and of a resideneo area, situated in the west bank of Gabriels Gully, held under a certificate of Regulations issued in 18G3. The defendants — twelve in number — are holders of mining claims at the Blue Spur, in the east bank of Gabriels Gully. The seven first named in the complaint, kuown and described as Morrison and Co., arc possessed of one of these claims ; and .the other defendant, known us Clayton and Co., of an adjoining claim. Each claim is worked by a separate tail race, discharging into Gabriels Gkdly ; and there are also, within" a few hundred yards, four other tailraces from claims on the Blue Spur, discharging into the gully. The effect of these extensive workings over a course of years has been to cause a very large deposit of tailings, raising the bed of the gully, it is said, in some places seventy or eighty feet above its natural level. The defendants' trailraces discharged higher up the gully than any of the others, and their tailings lodging upon the accumulation of years, and backed up by those from other claims below, have formed a bank or barrier across the gully, which dams up the Water of the gully j and this, aided by water from defendants' tailraces, is raised to the level of complainant's residence area; has flooded the dray track, and some damage has been caused to fruit trees and other cultivation. It has been shown that two separate parties of miners are here made jointly defendants, and the joint question raised for the defence is whether they are rightly joined. The evidence shows that Morrison and Co. and Clayton and Co. each work separate claims, without any community of interest, and without concert as to their mode or manner of working, each striving to force the debris from his claim into the lowest available space. Had it been shown that the defendants, although working distinct claims, were acting for their common benefit or by concerted arrangement, then my view is that the action would be against all or any one of the defendants, irrespective of the quantity of damage dono by each ; but, under the circumstances shown in this case, my opinion of the caso is that each separate party of miners is liable only in proportion to the extent they have contributed to the cause of damage, and that they are improperly joined as defendants. The judgment is that the complainant is non-Buited, with costs of Court. 4s. Agricultural lease "applications. — The applicants under-mentioned applied for the respective blocks of land to which their names are attached. His Worship dealt with them as follows : — Wm. Simpson, agricultural lease, section 6, block VIII., Hillend — granted ; Charles Forsyfch, agricultural lease, being part of two section 20, 80, 81, and 82, block 11., Table Hill (formerly 20 and 21) — certificate to is3ue on payment of first half -year's rent. The remainder of the land is auriferous, and application thereof is refused.' James Thompson, agricultural lease, section 19, block IV., Waitahuna East — certificate to issue on payment of first half-year's rent ; Robert Sutherland, section 7, block VI., Waitahuna East — certificate to issue on payment of first halfyear's rent ; A. M'Corkindale, section 22, block IV., Waitahuna East — certificate to issue on payment of first half-year's rent ; same) section 34, block IV M Waitahuna Eaat — granted as above ; George Kerr, section 8, block VI., Waitahuna East — adjourned on account of applicant not appeaiiag ; Wm. Osborne, section 7, block VII., Waitahuna West — certificate to issue on payment of first half-year's rent ; Michael O'Gorman, sections 72, 73, and 77, block VII., Waitahuna Eastcertificate to issue on payment of first halfyear's rent ; Thos. Ritchie Simpson, section (number not specified on-application) in block IV., Waitabuna East. This application -was objected to by R. Craig, bnt, on consideration, the application was ordered to stand over for survey. J«hn M'Laren, section 80, block 11., Table Hill. Charles Forsyte objected; his objection was sustained in evidence, and the •application was refused^"' Cancel of water race license. — Brown v-. Squires. — Complainant applied for the cancellation of defendant's water license No. 998. Defendant did not object. His Worship made an order whereby water race No. 998, 15th March, 1872, is declared forfeited, and the registration thereof cancelled, defendant Jojiay coats .of, Couxt. amooffbieoiHaj iqqih»