CHARLESTON NEWS.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 223, 18 April 1868, Page 2

CHARLESTON NEWS.

There was quite a little excitement about the Warden's Court, on Thursday, in consequence of a report that there was another " Battle of the Nile" coming off. Some eminent counsel arrived from Hokitika, engaged to appear in the case, the damages being laid at £IOOO. It turned out, however, to bo a mere skirmish, and the venue will now be probably changed to the Supreme Court.

The ebmer block at the top of Prin-ces-street and Camp, street, known generally as Harry Mann's corner, was offered at auction by Messrs Bain Brothers on Thursday afternoon, and after soino littlo competition was knocked down to Mr Behau for £555. This may be considered a fair price, though certainly not dear for a'property that has a rental coming in of d£lo 15s per week. We are happy to report tbe volunteers show indications of an intention to go heartily into the business they have undertaken. The committee of management have arranged for drill three times a week, viz., on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, at Hunter's Post Ollice Hotel; and on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, at JolliiFe's Oddfellows Hotel. Volunteers will thus have an opportunity of attending on tlie nights which may happen to suit their convenience best. We understand that Mr Broadbent is about to furnish the Camp with a clock which may be depended upon to keep correct time, and which will be regulated by Mr Broadbent according to the sun's time as taken by the har-bor-master, Captain Beveridgo. A trustworthy timepiece will be a most useful institution in this town, where so many business people have to regulate the opening and shutting of their houses by a standard time.

WARDEN'S COURT. Thursday, April 16. (Before G. W. Ligliband, Esq., J.P.) Samuel Hardleyv. EcJcles and Parti/. —Mr O'Neill appeared for the plaintiff', who claimed £3 for the use of certain water, and £29 2s as one-fifth share for crushing 191 loads of cement at 3s per load. This case occupied the court for several hours, and related entirely to matters of partnership between the parties to the suit. Mr Rees, who appeared for the defendants, succeeded in getting a verdict with costs. John Hurley and Party v. Timothy Lorden and Party —This was a case of encroachment, damages being laid at £IOO, but it was dismissed with costs.

Samuel W. Alcorn v. Jacob Weitiell and Co —Eor illegally keeping possession of a section of ground in Charleston, value £l2l Is. Adjourned to 11th June"

Philip McCarthy v. Philip Allen and Win. Hutchinson —The plaint note stated—l. That the defendants were in illegal possession of the Nile Bridge, the property of the plaintiff; 2. That they had detained the said property since the 10th September, and prayed that they be ordered to give up possession and be adjudged to pay £IOOO damages for tolls," &c., received.

Mr Eees (from Hokitika) appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harvey (also from Hokitika) for the defendants. Before going into the case Mr Harvey objected to its being heard at all in that court, and referred to different clauses in the G-oldfields Act relating to the powers and jurisdiction of a warden, whereby it appeared that he was possessed of no authority to adjudicate in a case such as this, his authority only extending over matters connected with the business of mining.

Mr Eees, in reply, said exactly the same arguments had been used before Mr Justice Richmond, in chambers, at Hokitika, when Mr Button applied for a prohibition. He then read the clauses in the Groldfields Act respecting tolls, bridges, and other works of the kind, in support of the view that these matters on a goldfleld are within the jurisdiction of a warden. He was quite surprised at the course taken by his learned friend, as it was distinctly arranged and understood between himself and Mr Button—who being unable to leave Hokitika had instructed Mr Harvey—that no question of jurisdiction should be raised. The Warden asked if the document produced was a lease from the Superintendent.

Mr Bees replied that it was a grant from the Commissioner. The Warden then said he should object to adjudicate on that document, unless it could be shown that the Commissioner had authority to mahe such a graut. If the parties wished he would adjourn the case to allow time for that point to be ascertained. The case was then adjourned sine die.