CHARLESTON NEWS.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 271, 13 June 1868, Page 5

CHARLESTON NEWS.

WARDEN'S COURT. Thursday June 11. (Before G. W. Lightband, Esq., J.P.) Alcorn v. Wcrzell &Co :—Mr Eees, from Hokitika, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr O'Neill objected to the summons as being against Jacob Weitzell &Co, whereas Jacob Weitzell was in Queensland, and no service had been made upon him, and the name of the Co. was not mentioned. In reply to an enquiry from Mr Bees Mr O'Neill said he appeared for Charles Weitzell. Mr Eees then applied to have the summons amended to Charles Weitzell &Co. and a long argument ensued, dn the course of which it transpired that one of the defendants was in Court. In reply to a question as to who was the " Co." Mr Eees suggested, the information being got from the defendant as the counsel for the defence refused to give up the name. On being interrogated the gentleman referred to said his name was Jacob Lichtscheindul. Mr Eees wanted to know if there were any other partners in the firm. Mr O'Neill declined to inform him. Mr Eees : then I shall put the gentleman with the unpronounceable name in the witness box ; if there are many more parties of the same sort of name I dont wonder my learned friend objects to name them. Jacob Litchtscheindul sworn, stated he was a partner in the firm of Weitzell &Co. and the only other partner was Charles Weitzell. Leave having been given to amend the summons, Mr O'Neill claimed a nonsuit on the ground that according to rule 62 of the goldfields regulations the Warden had no jurisdiction in a case of this sort which should properly be tried in the E. M. Court. Mr Eees having been heard in reply, the objection was overruled and the case proceeded. Erom the plaint note it appeared that the plaintiff claimed a certain section of land in the main street, on which stood an hotel formerly called the Queen's Hotel, together with £124 for rent of same from 17th of June 18G7, at £3 par week. W S Staite, the first witness called, said he was clerk to Mr Nees and recollectedtheporperty in dispute being leased by M'Earland to Guthrie, in April or May last year, and on 31st May M'Earland parted with his interest in the property to Alcorn, the present plaintiff. Guthrie and Wood, his partner, were tenants of Alcorn after that, but getting into difficulties they had a meeting of creditors and two trustees, Cornfoot and M'Vicar, were put into possession of the property. Some alteration was made, but eventually Guthrie and Wood, gave up all their interest to Cornort who took out a publican's license for the house. When the time for which Guthrie and Wood, had paid rent to Alcorn had expired, about a week or so after Comfort took possession, the latter asked Mr Pocock, Alcorn's agent, for permission to stay a short time louger, which was granted, and Comfort held possession as his tenant. Cross examined :—Guthrie and Wood gave Hp their interest to Cornfort in consideration, of his having been a heavy loser. Did not know how long Comfort had possession, might have been 3 weeks or 3 months. Mr Alcorn's business licenses were produced.

A Pocock stated that he rocollectod acting as Mr Alcorn's agent and having confirmed tho last witness evidence proceeded to say, ho went down with Mr M'Farland to the house and took possession for Alcorn from Guthrie, before Comfort was there; subsequently had askod for possession of tho property, from Paterson who was there acting in Comfort's absence, but was refused. He valued the property at about £2OO. Had advertised the premises for sale. Cross-examined.—Did not know how long Comfort was in possession. Never had, as Alcorn's agent, resident on tho premises, and know of no one having done so. Comfort was in possession but not as a tenant, and after he went away did not know of any one taking possession for Alcorn. Jacob Lichtscheindul examined, said ho bought the property in question from Mr Comfort for £IOO as per sale note produced ; was in possession two days and sold it again for £l5O. Cross examined :—No one claimed the property of me. First received a notice from the plaintiff about April, this year.

Wm. M'Farland confirmed that part of Mr Pocock's evidence as to taking posession. Had obtained the property from one M'Donald by a bill of sale, and subsequently sold it to the present plaintiff, Guthrie and Wood, the then tenants had agreed to pay <£B p e r week. R. S. M'V icar, remembered taking over the lease from Guthrie and Wood, in conjunction with Mr Comfort and was present when the latter askod Pocock for leave to stay another week or two.

This closed the case for the plaintiff. For the defence Julius Golds tucker was called who stated he as agent for Comfort had sold the property to defendant according to the document produced, and that he afterwards remained in possession for defendant two days. Henry Comfort, examined: —l could not say whether the property was mine or not. Mr Paterson was my agent and kept possession for me. My reason for doubting that the property was mine, was that there were three claimants, but I kept it in order to try and get back my own. I received from Patterson the money it was Bold for. I had no doubts about receiving that money. Alcorn brought two actions agaiust me for this property. Buther than run risks, I adopted the advice of my solicitor and gave Alcorn £IOO to settle the matter. Cross-examtned. I merely told my agent to sell my interest in the property. I did not guarantee a titie to Weitzell, By the Court—The £IOO paid by me to Alcorn was to satisfy his claim upon me ; did not consider that payment would protect Weitzell, it being left an open question whether proceedings should be taken against other parties. Ile-examined—The certificates of registration of section produced, were handed over to Weitzell. After an able address from Mr O'Neill, Mr Rees replied on the whole case at some length, specially pointing out that according to the terms of the sale note, Cornfootonly sold to Weitzell the furniture and stock &c, not the section or building. After half-an-hours adjournment his Worship gave judgment for the defendant, and costs amounting to £l9 19s. at the same time stating he considered the payment of £IOO by Cornfoot to Alcorn was to be taken as a settlement of the matter in dispute. Mr Eees gave notice of appeal.