WARDEN'S COURT, HOKITIKA.

West Coast Times, Issue 306, 15 September 1866, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, HOKITIKA.

(Before Q. C. Sciiaw, Esq., Warden, J.P.) September 11, 1866. • C. Linneman v. J. J. Bartlett,. — This was a complaint charging the defendant with being in illegal possession of ,twenty and a -half links of Section 3161, Tancredstreet. Mr Oakes for complainant; Mr South for defendant. It appeared that complainant Linnenfan had encroached upon some adjoining larid, and on being compelled to move had committed a like encroachment on some land of one "Walker's and the present defendant's, and had put his house against defendant's window, obstructing his light. Mr South proved the defendant's riglrt to the land in question, by purchase and occupancy ; and same was adjudged to defendant; with costs to be paid by'crtmplainant. C. Linneman v. Charlotte Wliitc. — This wqs a similar complaint as the last against the above defendant, for illegal possession of twenty-two and a-half links of Section 3160, Tancrcd • street. Mr Oakes for complainant Mr South for defendant. As it was proved that Linneman had absolutely paid defendant's agent, Mr Walker, rent for the very land he now claimed, the complaint was dismissed with costs, and the land adjudged to defendant. ,x, x House v. LouUson": Louisson v. Rouse. - 1 - Mr Rees for complainant and defendant Rouse; Mr South for defendant and complainant Louisson. This was an important case, as governing decisions in this Court, in reference to alleged encroachments caused h$ the recent re-sur-vey of sections in Hokitika. The evidence on behalf of complainant House, in the first case, went to show that defendant, the owner of the Lord Nelson Hotel in Revell-street.'had built v a "part of the hotel two feet at the front and five at the rear, on complainant** section. Mr Louisson, on this being represented tohimby Rouse offered him compensation, Rouse keeping back the fact that he had previously sold two feet to the former occupier, to enable him to build on Rouse's land. Mr Browning, from the-GovernmentSurvey Office, deposed that he had recently resurveyed the sections in question, and that there was a slight encroachment of the building in front, aim some five feet iv the rear. w lie had struck a line, giving the complainant about as much land as he originally had, in the hope thafan arrangement would bo effected between the contending parties. Mr South addressed the Court, and observed that thesecases weje of the utmost importance, as affecting the interests of the future holders of lands, when sold in Hokitika, and if decided on an equitable basis — as he was confident they would be in that Court— it would' have the desirable effect of avoiding endless litigation in every part of the township. Mr Browning had most properly struck a line, giving the complainant nearly as much land as he originally had, bnt Mr Rouse not being contented with that, and suppressing the fact of the sale of the two feet, had, quite unnecessarily, dragged Mr Louisson into Court, with a view to compensation, Ayhich he was not entitled to ; besides which Rouse had not shown that he was in any way injuriously affected. If these cases were settled in the 'spirit suggested by Mr Browning, it would save an* immense amount of ruinous litigation, which no well-wisher of- the Government would desire to see, be he lawyfer or not. ■ Mr Rees, on the complainant's part, contended that his client was entitled to com--pansstion for what he bad-proved to be an worottoftmrat in ww«g of th§ f^.

Mold. The Warden said, looking tt the case on a broadly equitable view, he considered that/the complainant Rouse having agreed to sell the quantity of land referred to, to enable the owner of the property to build thereon, the defendant was entitled to retain the land built ou, particularly as the surveyor had to set it out ; that in point of fact the complainant had not been deprived of the actual quantity of the land he was entitled to. The case was accordingly dismissed, and the other withdrawn.