Untitled

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 503, 13 May 1869, Page 2

1 "Who made de Palings ?'—The Eev. Newman Hall told the following story in the course of a lecture in Sheffield, on his recent visit to America. An illiterate negro preacher said to his congregation :—'My bredren, when the first man Adam was made, he was made ob wet clay, and set up agin de palings to dry ?' 'Do you say,' said one of the congregation, ' dat Adam was made ob wet clay, an ' set up agin de palings to dry?' 'Yes. sar, I do.' ' Who made de palings ?' Sit down, sar,' said the preacher sternly, ' such questions as dat would upset any system of theology.'

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT. Tuesday, May 11. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) CIYIL OASES. Moore v. Hayden.—A claim of £2 18s for refreshm»nts supplied to John and Andrew Hayden, and £1 14s, the amount of an I O U, signed Andrew Hayden ; the plaintiff being keeper of the accommodation house at the Ohikj ferry. The debt was denied. The Magistrate held that the claim must be made separately against each defendant, according to his liability ; and the plaintiff was non-suited. Findt v. J. Hayden.—A claim of £l9 2s 6d, the amount of an I O IF, stated to have been given in recognition of debt owing to the plaintiff as keeper of the Junction store and accommodation house. The defendant asked that the particulars of the demand should be produced. The Magistrate said the case was one which raised the question whether an I O U constituted a ground of action without a bill of particulars. In many cases parties sued upon an I O TJ, but where a defendant required that a bill of particulars should be put in, he was entitled to have it done. The Resident Magistrates Act was very explicit ; it said that in all cases a full bill of particulars shall be produced. If it had been a promissory note it would have been a different matter. An I O TJ was more a statement of indebtedness than anything else, and when a plaintiff sued upon it he might be required to put in an account of the items constituting it. It was open to the defendant to dispute it. He might say that it was signed under a mistake, or something of the kind. In the present case, although he might have no doubt as to the lOU. he thought it was a fair case for amendment ; and to enable the plaintiff to produce the bill of particulars he would adjourn the hearing. —The defendant complained of the inconvenience of being detained or brought again from the Lyell, and the case was adjourned until Monday week. Several other cases were disposed of, but they involved no point of interest. ♦ WARDEN'S COURT. The Warden's Court was chiefly occupied on Monday and Tuesday with the hearing of cases between Wilson and party v. Barker and party, and between Barker and party v. Wilson and party, claim-holders on Giles Terrace. In both cases Mr Tyler appeared for Wilson and party, and Mr Pitt and Mr Home for Barker aud party. In the first case Wilson's party claimed to mark off a portion of Barker's party's claim. They contended that, although it was held ostensibly by one man, it was part of the general claim, and that if it was so held, it was illegal, because the claim was not of the shape allowed by the rules, and the area was too great for the number of men. For the defence it was contended that Barker's party was a party of nine men, and that thsy had, as a block claim, nine men's grouud ; the disputed ground being one man's ground held and worked independently, although wrought through the same tunnel.

The Warden was of opinion that it was an attempt on the part of the defendants to evade the spirit of the regulations, and that the complainants were entitled to the ground. He gave judgment for the complainants, with costs.

In the second case, in which the position of the parties as coniplairants and defendants was reversed, Wilson's party were the holders of two amalgamated claims of four men's ground each, and they had marked off a separate claim of six men's ground. Mr Pitt contended that they were working this ground through the same tunnel ; that it was a palpable evasion of the regulations ; and that four men's ground (which the complainants had marked off) was, by the defendants, illegally held. Mr Tyler, for the defendants, contended that they were in legal occupation of the ground, by virtue of miners' rights and by the presence of wages men. The Warden, in giving his decision, which he reserved until Tuesday, said that a great many difficult questions naturally arose in connection with the question whether different claims could he wrought through the same tunnel. If any principle were laid down, such as that no two claims could be so worked, it would lead to great inconvenience. In the first place it might be a very desirable thing that one tunnel might be used for more than one claim. There might be a terrace in which the lead was so situated that it would not admit of more than one tunnel being used. On the other hand, if it were always allowed that different claims should be worked through one tunnel, great abuses might arise. It would lead to parties taking up any quautity of ground, and in any shape they liked. In this case the facts were that the defendants had an amalgamated claim consisting of two claims of four men's ground, and had since taken up an area of six men's ground. They had not a second tunnel to this ground, purposing to work it through the old tunnel. The complainants, believing that they had no right to hold the ground, had taped them off, and had taken four men's ground off this second area. The defendants alleged that they were working the two claim* as two separate claims. He was satisfied that the two claims could not be

considered as two separate claims. He thought that all. the facte went to show that they were holding them as really one claim, and that the intention was to work them as one claim. The mere fact of having put up a separate washing-stand could not lead him to consider that they were separate claims. The question was, could they work these two claims through one tunnel. It had been said for the defence that the tunnel was merely a convenience for getting into the grouud. He admitted the principle; there was nothing illegal in it, and, if the claims were separate, it might be desirable that there should be only one tunnel. But he did not think this could hold good in all claims. When ground was marked off as one claim, it might I e taken as one claim, or fourteen men's ground. But if it were admitted that a party could go on, taking up other claims represented by other men, and working through the same tunnel, there would be no end to it. Two separate and independent claims might work through the same tunnel by arrangement, but, if they were shown to be partners, the fact of their working through the same tunnel would be strong evidence that the claims were only one claim, and not two separate ones. The fact would not be illegal in itself, hut it would be corroborative evidence to the Court of the intentions and motives of the parties, and in some cases it would afford so strong a presumption as to be conclusive, unless positively and clearly rebutted. He considered that it did so in this case. If the defendants wished to take up this ground, they could have changed their certificate, amalgamated, and have taken up fourteen men's ground. He had no alternative but to give judgment for the complainants, but without costs. He did not think the defendants had acted wilfully or fraudulently. They had apparently acted in good faith. It was simply a question whether they were entitled to hold the ground, and he did not tkink that they were entitled. Yesterday, Mr Tyler applied for a re-hearing of the case, on the ground that the defendants had been taken by surprise, not being aware that the complainants laid any claim to the six men's ground, and on the further ground that they had discovered material evidence of which they were not possessed. He called Wilson and Tapley, who gave evidence that such was the case.

Mr Pitt made strong objection to the application. The Magistrate sai,l he would personally have preferred the case being appealed, but, if there were good grounds for a re-hearing, he would not refuse it, and he thought there bad bwu shown sume grounds for tho application made.

A re-hearing was accordingly appointed for Wednesday next. The "Warden afterwards disposed of nine applications for head-races and clams, five for tunnels, and three for washing sites.