WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT

Westport Times, Volume IV, Issue 702, 25 August 1870, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT

Tuesday, August 23. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) OSTEBLAND V. CATLIFFE. Complainant prayed the Court £o decree a dissolution of the mining partnership existing between defendant and him, on the ground that the defendant had refused to admit him to a share in the proceeds of his gold-min-ing claim. The evidence was altogether contradictory, the complainant alleging that both parties had been dividing mates for a long time, and that for three weeks he had agreed to take charge of defendant's flood-boxes while the latter worked his claim in consideration of receiving half the gold obtained from the claim. The first week defendant had promised to give him half the gold, the second week a third, and the last week he had sworn at the complainant and refused to give him any thing. The defendant denied having entered into the arrangement described and, in the absence of any evidence corroborative of the complainant's allegations, The Warden dismissed the case. Murdock and party v. Sonstrom and party. This was action for damages, £l5O, for an alleged encroachment by the defendants. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiffs. Evidence was called for the complainants, proving the nature of the encroachment, and that it could only have been effected by the defendants. Henry Lewis, Surveyor, stated that he surveyed the southern boundary of complainants' claim and found an encroachment of 1170 cubic feet ; the washdirt averaging three feet in thickness. It was also stated that the ground on the southern boundary was richer than the northern end of the claim, but not equal to the centre of the ground. Complainants had averaged throughout the claim two ounces of gold per set of 8 feet. The encroachment would occupy a space slightly exceeding fifteen 10 feet sets, which they computed to average 21 ozs per set. The defendants cross-examined Murdock and William Strange with a view to show that they had at some time occupied an area of ground, in excess of what they were entitled to by their miner's rights.

It was not shown however that such had been the case, and the Warden gave judgment for complainants for £7O and costs.

Eight n pplications for races, dams, and tunnels were then disposed of.