WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 667, 4 June 1870, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Friday, Juke 3. (Before J. Giles, Esq., "Warden.) Maloney and party v. M'Donald and party. —This was an action to recover the sum of £2l, being amount due by the defeudants to the complainants. Mr Pitt appeared for the complaiuants. The complainants had a main drainage tunnel at Addison's, which the defendants desired to make use of. It was agreed that they should be permitted to make use of the same in consideration of a payment of £2l. The complainants stated that "they had seen defendants that morning, and the latter had said they would not appear to dispute the claim. The defendants did not appear. Judgment for the complainants in the amount claimed and costs, and counsel's costs £3 3s. The sum of 16s was also awarded to the two plaintiffs who appeared. Deegan and party v. Williamson and party. —The plaint was that the defendants held a larger area as a gold mining claim, than they were entitled to under the regulations ; the complainants sought that they might be permitted to take up the ground in excess.

Mr Pitt appeared for the complainants.

George Wright said: I am one of the complainants, and have a claim on Eochfort Terrace, near to the defendants. On Monday, May 30, Edward Carter and myself went to Williamson's claim. I saw Williamson and M'Quillan, and asked them to show the pegs as I wished to take up ground. I said let some one go up who knows the pegs, and Williamson went up and showed me four pegs. He said they held ten men's ground. Deegan was present and he asked what area could ten men hold. Williamson replied 132 ft x 264 ft. I taped off the north boundary and found that it included too much ground. Williamson said it was because they had originally taken up 11 men's ground; the eleventh man had been turned adrift, but they did not think it worth while to draw the pegs. The sketch produced was made by Deegan. The figures showing the measurements are taken from Williamson's measurement. We pegged off the surplus ground on the north boundarv, namely 18ft x 120 ft or 2160 ft. "They held 2225 feet in excess.

By defendant: We commenced to tape off before you told us you held 11 men's ground. Something was said by M'Leod about 11 miner's rights. Edward Carton, who had accompanied the previous witness on the occasion referred to, corroborated the latter's testimony. Michael Deegan corroborated previous witnesses, and stated that Williamson mentioned having eleven miner's rights, and one man being engaged in the bush. For the defence it was shown that there were four wages men engaged on the claim and seven shareholders. Three of the wages men were engaged by the party, and one wages man was paid by M'Leod, who held two shares.

John M'Leish said: lam a wages man, engaged by the defendants. I was working on Saturday tho 28th ult., on the Monday following and since.

By Counsel: I commenced working three weeks ago. Another wages man was put on at the same time.

By Warden: I have been working all the time for the company. Thomas Mackley said: lam a wages man, employed by the defendants. I was working in the claim on Saturday last, on Monday and since. I worked for the party and not for John Mees. By Counsel: I went on with M'Leish. I knew there was a wages man working also in the bush. John Eastman said : I am a wages man, employed by the defendants. I was working on Saturday last, on Monday and since. By Counsel: I went to work about eight o'clock on Monday morning. I have not dono work for any party but the defendants for tho last two months. I split a thousand laths on contract and completed the contract about a month ago. Since then I have been working in and about tbo claim. M'Quillan told me to work upon tho claim on Monday morning. I worked a few days for Wilson, one of the wages men when he was absent, that was before May 16th. By Warden: I worked 8 or 9 days for Wilson. I was working for the party on Saturday last- I was paid by the week. They settled up with me on Monday last, after 1 had been told to work in the claim. I hold a dam in the creek, also some boxes a few hundred yards distant from the clam. I hold them by a second miner's right, and they are worked by a boy, holding a miner's right. I should have gone to work for the party in the bush on Monday morning as usual, had M'Quillan not told me to work in the claim. Alex. M'Leod said: lam one of the complainants. John Mees and I blocked off the ground on May lGth. We blocked off 11 men's ground. On Monday, May 30th I learnt the ground was disputed. I immediately went to complainants. I offered there and then to produce 11 men working on the ground and 11 miners' rights for the ground. There are eight shares, and seven actual shareholders. I hold two one-eighth shares. My second share is represented by Wilson, who sold out to me. Wilson was absent for about a week, but that was previous to May lGth. The shareholders are M'Leod, Williamson, M'Quillan, Lyons, Mees, Kelly, and Poole; the wages men are M'Leish, Mackley, and Eastman paid by the party, and Wilson paid by myself. Those are the eleven men who have been engaged on the ground previous to and since the 30th May. By Counsel: I will not swear that Eastman was not working for the party under contract. I will swear that I know of no contract between him and the party. Mr Williamson stated that that was all the evidence he should call. He regretted that they had been unable to secure prefessional assistance. He considered their case sufficiently made out without further witnesses.

Mr Pitt then addressed the Court, and called attention to the fact that although eleven men's ground had been taken up, Williamson had admitted that they only claimed ten men's ground. The evidence on that point had not been disputed. He also contended that Eastman had not been an actual wages man but had supplied timber by contract. The, man who was holding two shares and who would be most Jikely to know the exact position in which Eastman stood, would not swear that the latter was not working under contract.

The Warden gave judgment for the complainants with costs.