WARDENS COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 349, 12 September 1868, Page 6

WARDENS COURT.

TIJESDA-Y, Septembek 8. (Before J. Giles, Esq, Warden.) Lute and party, v. Perry, Nicholls, and party. This was an adjourned case, wherein the plaintiff sought for an injunction to prevent defendants from working certain ground at Q-iles' Terrace, pending an appeal to the District Court against the warden's decision, wherein he gave a verdict for the defendants. Since the last hearing it had been arranged that assessors should be appointed by each party, in reference to the injunction sought, and to consutnate this arrangement the case was now proceeded with. Two assessors had been chosen, Mr Hunter for Luke and party, and Mr Bradley by Perry, Nicholls and party. The "Warden said that all he had to do, was to give an order on the assessors report being furnished. Mr Pitt reminded the warden, that on the last, occasion the plans put in, very materially differed, and it was very important that there should be no doubt as to the correctness. In order to ensure this, he suggested that some other surveyor should go out with these two gentlemen, and perhaps if not otherwise engaged, Mr Lowe would go. The Warden said, he could not interfere in the matter, as the case was now in the District Court. Mr Tyler presumed that the duties of the assessors would be first to ascertain if it would be prejudicial to Perry and party to allow the ground to stand undisturbed till the 17th of November, when the appeal would be heard, and if so, to what exent.

The "Warden then addressed the assessors, and said that they were no doubt aware, that a piece of ground in dispute had been awarded by the decision of that Court to Perry and party, and Luke and party had appealed against that decision. The appeal could not be heard till the 17th of November, and the applicants, Luke and party, were anxious to obtain an injunction in the meantime, to prevent Perry and party from working the ground. As a general principle this was so far right, but by granting it Perry and Party might sustain very material damage. If they won the case they would have been prevented working for more than two months, and it was now required of them (the assessors) to ascertain whether material injury could arise that would materially prejudice them. He did not thoroughly understand their statements himself, but understood they intended to work the claim backwards, removing the slabs and timber- as they receded, leaving the ground to fall in or not after they had worked it. If they worked it any other way they would be compelled to keep it timbered the whole time. Whether this was so or not he did not know, and he wanted them to form an opinion as to whether it would preju-

dice Perry and party to lock up the ground for two months, and if so to what amount. For that money, or for satisfactory security to be lodged, he would make an order, and this would be held as in indemnity against loss to Perry and party in case of the appeal being dismissed. In the event of their winning the case, it would of course be handed back to them. If the assessors could not agree in their decision they must appoint a referee, and leave the question to him. On receiving their decision in writing on that point, he. would make an order, and issue the injunction on security being furnished, or the money deposited. The case was then left at this point, and the decision of the assessors may be expected in a day or two