WARDEN'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 318, 29 September 1866, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before C. V. Schaw, Esq., Warden.)

Friday, September 28.

Charles Veith was charged with having, contrary to the law made and provided, retailed liquor in his licensed house after the hour of eleven o'clock, on the 16th inst. The prosecuting constable deposed that lie found the front and side doors open, and several parties drinking inside, defendant pleaded they were . regular boarders at his establishment, and that he served them with beer only.' Warden— l can make no distinction between malt liquor and spirits,, and inflict a fine of L 3, and costs.

Defendant (excitedly)— Thank you, Sir, for your decision ; and if this is English law

s Warden — Silence, Sir. « (who had retreated to the doorway)— Silence, Sir 4 I shall say what I 'like, by God ! after such treatment. Warden — Arrest, and lock him up for contempt of Court. — At this ominous order, the defendant suddenly disappeared, and made such good use of his legs that the constable presently returned, and stated he was nowhere to be seen.

The Warden Siery leniently forbore to issue an order for his arrest. ,

Klein v. Frank.— This was a case of dis- v puted occupation of a portion of land at the back of plaintiff's section in Revellsfcieef. There was no appearance of the defendant, but the case, was gone into, plaintiff deposiug the ground in dispute formed the only r.ight-of-way by which goods could reach his premises, lie gave the defendant notice not to build upon it, who, however, had persisted in so doing, and in consequence there was barely room for the passage of a dray. Fearful that the place would be entirely blocked up, he laid the present action, pleading the land was his by virtue of the new survey. The Warden, in giving judgment, admitted [ the plea. He said that the township would be in all probability sold in three or four weeks, when all those buildings 'which blocked lip the back of the street sections must bcremoved, as their erection was quite contrary to the law. He gave judgment for < the plaintiff, " who, pending the land sales, consented that the building he complained of should remain in its present posilionj • Sprot v. Kitson. This case was heard at the last sitting of the Court, and was remanded for judgment^ as the Warden to inspect the ground. He decided that the defendant could not claim ' a greater depth to his section than 66 feet, whereas he attempted to hold 165 feet. The Government alone' had the power of disposing of such spare ground, which would be equitably allotted to the holders of frontages at the ensuing land aalea. Judgment for plaintiff with costs. Doran v. Jackaon and party. - -This was a mining case, and originated through the defendants having sunlc a paddock on the head race line which was surveyed and registered by the plaintiff. Plaintiff deposed that himself and mates were mining on the right, hand branch of the Ho Ho Creek. On the Ist of August last they had made the usual application for permission to construct a head race, which was duly granted by the Warden. When the line of race was surveyed, it was found to intersect the claim now held by defendants, but which was then occupied .by another party, who gave free permission to plaintiff to cut through the claim. Notices were posted on. the line of race, and no objection having been entered against the construction of a ditch, the work was commenced atthe expiration of fourteen days. Subsequently the claim was abandoned, and re-occupied by defendant and his mates, who objected to th^ race on the grounds that it would prevent them working. It was impossible to alter the line of rate without abandoning the portion already cut, which would entail a great expense. Judgment for plaintiff with'", costs.

Reany y. Oakes. — This was an action to recover ground held by defendant at the back of plaintiff's section in Revell-atreet. The plaintiff/based his'right upon the new survey, whilstdefendantciaimedthe ground by right of purchase and an occupation, which dated from : September* lust. He advanced .as a plea, that he fenced the ground in, and that plaintiff bought his section after he (defendant) was in occupation of the ground now in dispute, and at that time, expressed himself satisfied to hold so much and no mote. This was denied by the plaintiff, who swore that when he bought the section it was with the understanding that his right to the back ground was undoubted. The Warden decided that v the sale alluded to by defendant was illegal, as no one had a right to sell Jand at the back of another section holder's allotment. The plaintiff* right to the ground in question was perfectly clear, and judgment must therefore be recorded in his favor. The building and fencing, on the land, of course, belonged to defendant, and should be settled for out of Court.

Kennedy v. Hurst. — This case was similar in nature to the last heard, as the defendant sought to register his back ground, which procedure was objected to by the plaintiff, who claimed it as his. As a question arose during the hearing, touching the position ■of a small building which encroached two feet upon that portion of defendant's section, in front of the disputed ground, the case was remanded until # Friday next, for the production of an important witness named Smith, at present residing in the Waimea district.

The Court then adjourned until the above day at eleven o'clock'.