Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuesday, Apeil 12

(Before J. Griles, Esq., Warden.) Goodall and Party v. Lowther and Party.—ln this ease the complainants sought that the defendants be ordered to let down a head of water in conformity with the conditions under which they held certificate of registration. It appeared that the complainants and defendants both held certificates of registration for a headrace carrying one head of water, and the conditions under which they held were that they should severally use an undivided half-share of the water, one party using it by day and the other by night, or in any way as mutually agreed upon. Goodall and party stated that they had been for a lengthened period engaged in bringing in a head-race for the purpose of ground sluicing their registered claim. Prior to that a man named Daniel Bailey held a claim in the creek, where he had constructed a dam for the purpose of collecting and washing tailings immediately below their washing-site and tail-race. This party had assisted them in working their own claim, receiving in lieu of wages complainants' share of water whenever they did not require it. On Thursday last Bailey made application to Lowther to let the water down, when the latter declined to recognise Bailey in the matter, and he then fetched Goodall, who made a similar application. Lowther refused to send the water down for the use of Bailey, denying that complainant held any right under his certificate to let or assign his share in the head-race except by their mutual consent. The Warden, after hearing evidence on both sides, held that there was nothing in the conditions under which the certificate of registration had been granted to debar the complainant from assigning his interest. Judgment entered accordingly, with costs. Hamilton and others v. Blair and others. The plaint was that defendants had illegally worked complainants' claim. The defendants did not appear. Hamilton stated that himself and two mates pegged out three men's ground at Bradshaw Terrace on Saturday last, and had sunk a shaft. They returned to the ground on Monday, and found the defendants in occupation. The latter decliued to leave the ground, remarking that complainants were too late. Defendants left about 3 o'clock the same afternoon and had not since been on the ground. Complainant stated that the miner's right of Joseph Manson had expired four days, and the holder had not had time to renew it. The Warden confirmed plaintiffs in the possession of two men's ground, with costs.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WEST18700414.2.11

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 645, 14 April 1870, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
420

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT. Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 645, 14 April 1870, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT. Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 645, 14 April 1870, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert