WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT CIVIL SITTINGS.

Westport Times, Volume II, Issue 331, 22 August 1868, Page 4

WESTPORT DISTRICT COURT CIVIL SITTINGS.

Pbiday, August 21. (Before his Honor, Judge Clark) IMPORTANT DECISION ON CHARLESTON EXTENDED CLAIM. The following case was submitted by Mr. Warden Broad for the opinion of District Judge Clarke, under the 78th section of the Groldfields Act 1866. The old mining rules (page 31,) provide two methods for the extension of ordinary claims. Ist. By proclaiming old worked ground within the boundaries of which double areas may be taken up. 2nd. By application, posting notice, survey &c, and the hearing of any objection. A large number of claims at Charleston are held on registration certificates for quadruple the ordinary area ; no ground has been proclaimed as old worked ground, therefore the first section under which claims are extended cannot apply. On the other haud all the conditions of the second section have been complied with except the deposit of £5 and the survey of the land applied for. These claims have been, in some cases, held for 12 months without the title being disputed untill now. The questions tor the decision of the Court are : —lst. Does the new

•mrvey of these claims render' the certificate invalid. 2nd. If so, can Mieso certificates be validated by the survev being now made, or would it be ueeessary to mako a fresh application and to register. His Honor's decision was as follows —" That the certificate is invalid and cannot be tomodied. Fresh application must be made. Survey must bo made in the first instance to allow the public an opportunity of objecting."

MTKTN-O APPH.VT, CA.SE3. Southerland and party appellants, Hides and narty respondents. Messrs Tvler and Rees appeared for the appellants—Mr Home for the respondents. Mr. Tyler said that this was .an appeal, not as in ordinary cases against the decision of a warden, but of a - sessovs the warden dissenting from the verdict of the assessors. The notices of appeal were proved in the usual manner. There were six grounds of appeal, the first ot which was that the decision appealed against was that of assessors, whilst it should have been the decision of the warden. This was the cihef point for if it was sustained, the case full to the ground. It appeared that the case in question was originally tried before Mr. Warden Broad and four assessors, and the assessors found a verdict for the present respondents, then the complainants. Mr. Broad however dissented from the verdict, and refused to record his decision in the minute book kept for that purpose. On the side of the appellants it was urged that this refusal nullified the assessors verdict and that it was worthless as the Act expressly laid clown that all decisions should be those of a warden or of a warden and assessors. Mr Heme on the other hand submitted that the assessors were practically a jury and that their decision was in fact'the decision of the lower court. As Mr. Broad, the Warden, was preseut when the assessors signed the minute book and presided at the hearing, it was legally a decision of the lower court and must be accepted as such. Mr. Tyler on the contrary argued that of necesity the warden must concur in the decision, and he quoted a number of clauses of the Goldflelds Act in support of this view. He held that assessors were not jurymen nor were they possessed of the power of jurymen. Jurymen had distinct issues submitted to them, but judges alone gave judgment. Assessors had simply t<> decide questions subimtted to them by the warden, and he subsequent!" gave his decision. The verywords of the schedule form of appeal showed the intention of the Legislature for the appeal was there allowed against the decision of the warden, and if the warden gave no decision there could be no appeal. Mr. Rees submitted that cause 70, shut out any other interpretation of the Act, for it was the only clause giving power to carry out the judgment, or order of the warden. Mr. Home replied, and the argument lasted a long time, at the end of which, his Honor said he would take a note of the objection and proceed with the case. The action was to recover compensation for damage done to respondents claim, by appellants wa-ter-race at Brighton and damages had been given to them by the assessors when the case was heard before the wprden. The case in its self posseesed no public interest whatever, its chief feature being its apparently interminable length. It was opened yesterday about 11 a. m. and lasted, with the excepion of a short interval of adjournment, till 5 p.m. At the latter hour four witnesses, Hides and Diinmock, two of the respondents Messrs Broad (Warden) and Bai i (surveyor) hadbeen examined. There are altogether twenty-one witnesses summoned, so a balance of seventeen have yet to give evidence. The Court adjourned till today at eleven o'clock when the hearing will be proceeded with.