WARDEN'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 310, 20 September 1866, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before C. C. Schaw, Esq.)

Tuesday, September 18. Horneck v. Walker. — Mr Oakes for plaintiff ;Mr Kees for defendant. This was a case of disputed registration of a portion or" section 771 in Revell street. In his plea, plaintiff's counsel stated that this case, in another form, had been before the Court already, once in December last, aud again in the following July ; and in both instances a. verdict was recorded for his client.- Such being the case, Mr Oakes contended that another hearing was inadmissable, and claimed that the case be dismissed. Mr Rees submitted that the case now before the Court had never been decided upon, as in the trials alluded to by the council for plaintiff, it was building, and not land, which caused the dispute; the plaintiff having objected to the erection of a certain fence which interfered with his building, and this objection was allowed by the Warden. The present case was one of disputed registration (under the new survey) of a portion of section 771, and was quite distinct from the other. The summons was issued against the defendant for " illegally claiming," and if the case was dismissed it amounted to a judgment in his favor. He however considered there was good ground for a re-hearing. The Warden, in giving judgment, said that he distinctly remembered adjudicating upon the case in July last. He then visited the ground in dispute, and, from the evidence adduced, he gave judgment in plaintiff's favor., Judgment so given was irrevocable, save by an appeal to the Supreme Court, and he wished the public distinctly to understand that he would allow "no jury to over-ride a ( verdict he had once given. He directed the plaintiff to hold the ground in dispute, and register it according to the ' Act. Mr Rees pressed that the case should, be re-heard, as he had new material evidence to bring forward ; but the Warden was imperative in his objection, and the disputants then retired. Leary v. Hewers. — Disputed possession of a right-of-way between sections No. 219 and No. 301, Revell street. Settled out of Court. Costs divided.