WARDEN'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 346, 1 November 1866, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

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

Tuesday, October 30.

The Court opened at five minutes past twelve.

Charles Veith was summoned on the charge of having deserted his licensed public-house. Mr Hurvey, on behalf of the defendant, made application that the summons be withdrawn, on the plea, that the license had been transferred to another party named John Schreider. He (the counsel) made application that the transfer should be assented to by the Court, stating that the form prescribed by law would have been complied with before but for some hitch in the proceedings over which the defendant had no control. The Warden said it was quite out of order to transfer a license without first "h-insr notice to the police, whose duty it would be then to ascertain the character of the party in whose favor the transfer would be effected. He (the Warden) certainly considered thatto transfer the license of a hotel without first obtaining permission to do so, and after w-i rds to continue to retail liquors in the name of the new occupant was a very cool way of doing business. He should decidtdly object to such an irreuuWity, and in this case, although he should sanction the withdrawal of the summons, must order that the hotel in question be shut up until the trnnsfer of the license was legalised. George Harper, who was subpoenaed to give evidence in the case of Taggart v. Reeves, which was heard at the last bitting of the Court, but who, failing to appear, was fined L 5, made application that the fine might be rescinded, as be lud been compelled to go away in the steamer Bruce. The Warden admitted the plea, but stated that his so doing must not be considered as a precedent in any future case, as he intended to rigorously punish any act which -could be construed into contempt of Court. The circumstances of the case warranted him in taking a lenient view of it. The fine was therefore remitted.

Charles Collins, a publican, was charged by the police with having neglected to keep his night lamp lit in front of the house. Defendant admitted the charge but pleaded a first offence, which being substantiated by the prosecuting sergeant the case was dismissed.

Reginald Fane for a similar offence was fined 10s and costs.

Ilokitika and Grejmouth Tramway Company (Limited) v. Wells and Woodrough. —Mr Campbell appeared for plaintiff, Mr South for defendants. This case arose from an objection on the part of the defendants to allow the tramway to run through their market gardens without receiving compensation from the Company for the damage they would sustain thereby. They claimed compensation to the amount of LIOO, which was refused by the Com pan}', on the plea advanced by their counxel. that the defendants had no legal title to hold the ground, as it was situated above high water mark on the Queen's highway, which he alleged could he considered in no other ligl t than that of a public reserve. The Government had granted the company a width of five chains along the line of beach above high water mark on which to construct the line of tramwa}', and if it could be proved that the line interfere d with vested rights, the company was prepared to grant reasonable compensation ; but certainly had no idea of submitting to every demand mnde upon it on the score of encroachment. The learned counsel asked the Court whether the Oueen's highway could be considered a public reserve or not. The Warden replied there was no doubt that it was a reserve. Mr South, for the defendants, said that the case then before the Court was one of se^eral of a similar nature which would be heaid that day. He represented the defendants in each, and had no desire to offer any factious opposition to the Tramway Company. He apprehended, however, that the subject would be treated ou the same principle as was adopted in the construction of railways in the mother country. Assessors should be appointed to adjudge upon the claims of his clients, who were all engaged in cultivating market gardens, which would be seriously damaged if the tramway was taken through them. He (the counsel; was not at all certain that the ground in question was set apart as a public reserve when his clients took up their sections. Mr Sale, however, might be able to give impottant evidence on this point; but on being informe.l by the Court that that gentleman was suffering fiom extremeindisposition, Mr South expressed his regret, and bhould not dream of asking for his appearance. Mr Cooper (mining surveyor) deposed that he maiked off the proposed line of tramway. The gardens were on the Queen's highway, being within 100 feet, and in some places 20 feet of high water mark. By Mr South— About five months ago, a *line was surveyed along the beach, five chains ftom high water mark, and the space between the two was set apart fur public purposes — such as roads, &c. He could not fay positively whether defendants were in occupation of the gardens at that time. Charles Woodroagh, being called on by Mr South, deposed that he was one of the defendants in the preseut case. In the month of May, 1865, he applied to the Government for half an acre of ground for agricultural purposes, which was granted to him, and on the 17th of the same month he entered into actual occupation. Since then he had been employed clearing and cultivating the land, upon which he depended for a living, and if the tramway was cut through it he should be ruined, lie produced a Resident's area certificate mid miner's right as the authority under which he held the land. By Mr Campbell — Marked the ground out myself. Did not call in a surveyor to do so,, as I had no idea such a course was necessary. The evidence of Wells the other defendant, whose 'garden adjoins AVoodrough's, was much to the same effect. He al*o produced a Resident's ai ea certificate and miner's right. After an animated discussion between the learned counsel on the merits of their respective cases, the Warden, in giving judgment, decided that, as the defendants had registered their ground and complied with the law in every respect, they were entitled to receive compensation, but to the extent only of tjie actual damage their gardens would sustain by cutting the tramway through them. It was clear the defendants had no absolute title to the ground fuither than that given them by the Resident area certificate, which did not extend over a twelvemonth, as they were on the Queen's highway, which they ought to have known was alwa} r s reserved for public purposes. The Tramway Company would of course hold the five chains granted by the Government ; and, to prevent confusion for the future, he (the Warden) should object to renew the certificates of residence, and as they expind the holders of the ground must give it up to the Company. He. advised the apuointm ent ot twelve assessors, who should ecide upon the amount of compensation.

and he (the Warden) would hear their decision on the next Court day. The expenses of said assessors to be defrayed equally by the disputants. Tramway Company v. Louis Viartlet. — Similar cas to the former. The defendant laid damages at Ll2O, which was opposed by the Company on grounds that the occupation was illegal. Judgment -claim for actual damage allowed. Assessors appointed.

Tramway Company v. James Miller — The defendant in this case based his claim for compensation on the grounds that he was, the holder of a prospecting claim which had been granted to some parties by the Government more than twelve months ago. The claim was situated above high water mark, and if the tramway ran through it he should be compelled to abandon the ground, as his head nice would be destroyed, and he would he unable to work v the ground on a face. A portion of it was laid out as a garden. He (the defendant) bought the ground from the original holders, aud registered it in his own name, and since then had held it closely, lie laid his damages at £190 in the event of the proposed line of tramway being taken through the ground By the Warden — He believed thnt the claim he then held was the one originally granted to the prospectors. The Waideu decided against him, inasmuch as on that point he was quite in error. The original prospecting claim was situated between high and low water marks, which was proved by the archives of the Court. He (defendant) had evidently shifted the pegs up the terrace, for what purpose was best known to himself. The line of tramway, therefore, did not run throt.g'i his ground, but far above it, and *>f- course, he had not the shadow of a right to hold possession. He (the Warden), however, wished that all parties should have justice done them in these disputes with the Company, and he should, therefore, visit the ground himsi If, and see what were the claims of defendant for compensation. A re-hearing of the case was appointed for Friday next.

Tramway Company v. A. Brookes.— The same plea was advanced by complainants as in the former cases. Defeudant, in reply, stated that he had held the ground for over twelve months, and followed ihe occupation of maiket gardener and dairy man. His ground was situated just above high water mark, and the line of tramway threatened to cut off a strip of tight feet along its entire length (ten chains). He jaid his damages at L3O, as the fence would of necessity be destroyed. Mr Campbell admitted that this was a moderate demand, although he still contended the defendant had no right to the ground. He, however, thought it very possible that the Company would have no objection to erect another fence for him. The Warden considered that the Company could do no less, and gave judgment uccordingly. He also decided that a surveyor should visit the different sections, and mark off the exact Hue where the tramway would intersect them.

This terminated tlie business of the Court, which was adjourned to Friday next, at 1 1 a.m.