CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 803, 18 April 1871, Page 2

CHARLESTON.

WARDEN'S COURT. Thursday, April 13. (Before C. Broad, Esq., Warden.) APPLICATIONS. Shine and party applied for a race from Jones and party's boxes, Mount Pleasant, and terminating at their dam Candlelight. Objected to by Morgan and party, Morrel and party, Harold and party, and Harle and party. Mr Shapter appeared for applicants. Thomas Shine: We propose to take the water from Jones and party's boxes, who are supplied from Haines and party's race. Jones and party intend to raise their boxes above-* the level of the creek. We purpose building a dam to hold the tailings from flood to flood. We have also applied for a dam at Curry and party's site. I believe that granting this race would be an advantage to the district, as the water will be utilised by Haines and party, our party, and others. It will also be an advantage to Jones and party, Curry and party, and Larkin and party, as the price of the water j will be reduced to them. We intend to flume over all the drainage coming j into the creek, and we will not interfere with Morrel and party's dam. Upon cross-examination the witness stated that they did not intend to take four heads of water from Jones and party,, they intended to get it from the three parties named. The intended course of the race was ten feet higher than Morrel and party's dam, and, if necessary, they would flumo over it They had applied for a dam ten feet high to stack tailings. The Warden said he would view the ] ground tho following day and decide upon it.

Eowe and party applied for a dam, the certificate of which had been can-; celled by tho Court in the case (rf Ilarle and others v: Eowe and party The application was opposed, and the "Warden adjourned the case to the ground.

HAINES AND PABTI V. TKE PBOGBESSIVE WATEB BACK COMPANY (bEGlSteked). TJie assessors having returned after visiting the ground, Mr Shapter said that the plaintiffs held a la rye dam in a natural basin, below the defendants' dam.' The defendants had changed their by-wash, thereby depriving the plaintiffs of water to which it was contended that they were entitled. Charles Haines: lam one of the plaintiffs. I produce the certificate of the dam, and also of the race from the dam.

Charles E. Kellins*, Clerk of the Court, produced the application for the dam, and the registrations in connection with it. Charles Haines' examination continued : I know the dam. We applied for the dam in consequence of seeing a quantity of water going to Waste, not for the drainage of the creek, but to eatch the waste water. The dam used to receive the flood water from defendants' dam. The manager of our race informed me, after the last rain, that the dam had not received the usual quantity of water. After the last rain, I saw the dam that we constructed for Hunter and party. There were then from 70 to 100 heads flowing over the by-wash, and discharging into the sea. I then went to defendants' dam, and found the water flowing over the road. I believe Hunter's dam would fill in about the same time as the defendants' dam ; there were about forty heads of water flowing over the by-wash. The diversion was caused by filling the by-wash at our side of the dam, and cutting a by-wash at the other side. It is about twelve months since I was at the dam. At that time, the flood water used to flow into our dam. I believe the dam had been then finished about six months. I estimate the amount of damage that ■we have sustained to be about £IOOO. I compute it at that amount in consequence of not having had water to work, and the race carrying away, in consequence of the sun cracking it. My reason for not bringing this case sooner into Court was that I was kept too busy in looking after the rights of Hunter and other parties. I believe that the changing of the by-wash was no benefit to the defendants, but must have cost them money. Cross-examined by Mr Walker: The area of our dam is stated to be about 300 acres. The dam is intended to catch storm-Water. I know the Progressive Company's dam. The water flowing over the by - wash was a portion of the water for which we had applied. We applied for all the water going to waste. I believe there is no unoccupied ground between the two dams. We recognise your rights. I never applied to you for water. You applied to us for water. As nearly as I can judge, there are about 300 people working with our water. We have kept them iu water constantly except during the late dry weather. I know Huuter and party's race ; they use their water for both public and private purposes. I believe we have lost about £IOOO in consequence of your changing the bywash.

James Edwin GHlespie: I know the Progressive Company's dam. I was formerly manager for the company. I took charge in January, 1870. The dam was partly built before it was formed into a company. It was about II feet high when I took charge of it. I was manger about 20 weeks. There was an addition put on the dam whilst I was there. The by-wash was then at the south end of the dam ; that is the side over Haines's dam. Some water used to flow over the Brighton road. I was at the dam less than a week since and found that the vacuum left for a by-wash, on the lower side, was filled up. lam not aware when the alteration was made in the bywash. I left in June, 1870. The alteration of the by-Wash would deprive the plaintiffs of the water. The water flowed over the by-wash three times during the 20 weeks that I was manager. There were, at least, 20 heads of water flowing over the by-wash. I do not think the alteration of the bywash is of any benefit to the defendants.

Cross-examined, by Mr "Walker: I received instructions to raise the wall of the dam at the south end. I let a contract for the work. The highest portion of the wall was levelled down. William Pace: I have been looking after the Brighton and Charleston road between 8 and 4 years. There was a large quantity of water crossing the road in time of floods. There was ■ no water overflowing before the dam was built. I know" that the water suddenly increased there, but I do lot know the cause. I do not know where Warden's Creek heads from. William O'Dwyer: This witness, ,l P°n being placed in the box, stated that he had a government contract, aud claimed £2 as expenses. His Worship said that he was only entitled to fourteen and sixpence per Upon being sworn the witness said i * took a contract in March, 1871, to raise, the wall of the Progressive Company s dam. I know Haines's dam. I ™ the water flowing through the Pv-wash should flow into Haines's dam. JLbat was the only by-wash, but I have «eou a httlo water flow past the end of the north wall. Tfci an !?« J {itclli e, John Dillon, S X' Kerrow ' John Mitchell and Sl P ¥ . Urth - V also g av e evidence \ t°r the plaintiffs. ' T,i° r the def w»ce, the following witi nB »M were examined:— timothy Cadigan: I know the Pro.

gressive Company's dam near tho Four Mile. 1 bad a contract to build a wall there. The wall at the Brighton r*oad ia not as high as the other wall, so that the Water would flow that way. Francis Fox : I am one of the original shareholders in the company. I know Haines and party's dam, it is ahout half a mile from the Progressive Company's dam. I recollect the time that Gillespie was manager. He received instructions to raise the dam which he did not carry out, but allowed the part that was 20 feet high to be lowered. I was one of the directors at the time. It was not the intention of the company to have the bywash at the south side. We cut a bywash in consequence of the judgment in the case of Kane v. Greenslade. We haye since purchased the rights of Kane and part. I recollect the natural flow of the water in Warden's Creek. It would flow over the Brighton road, and the water from the White Cliff Pakihi would flow there also. The company have expended a large sum of money in conveying water to the dam.

Mr Shapter cross-examined the witnesses at length. Mr Kellmg was called and read the judgments in the cases of Hunter and party v. Greenslade and party, and Kane and party v, Greenslade and party.

George Patterson another of the shareholders also gave evidence. James Henderson stated: I know the Progressive Company's dam. I know the east wall, it is registered 20 feet high. It is not that height, but it is the intention of the company to to raise it to that height. It never was intended to have the by-wash at the south end. The greater portion of the water that feeds the dam would flow down Warden's Creek according to the natural flow of the water. I know the off Pakihi. Kane's dam is on the sea side of the Brighton road.

William Hunter and William Wilson gave evidence.

Mr Walker and Mr Shapter both addressed the Court.

Mr Broad, in summing up, said that the case that the assessors would have to try was a novel one. The principal point they would have to try was which course the natural flow of the water would take. The greater portion of it would, no doubt, flow down Warden's Creek. The Court was then cleared, and, upon being re-opened, the following verdict of the assessors was read :

" We, the undersigned, find that the Progressive Water-race Company are entitled to have their by-wash in in any part of their dam, and as it is at present sitituated, they having complied with the mining rules, section 10 clause 12, having sent the surplus water to the next right holder, and having conveyed their by-wash water into the dams. We cannot see that Haines and party have any right to any surplus water as they never applied for it. We, therefore, find a verdict tor the defendants with costs — Signed, Myrick Jones, Michael Murray, Timothy O'Keefe and Thomas Kyne." The case was watched with much interest, and it was nearly 9 o'clock before it was concluded. Fbidat, Apeil 14. Monier v. Sullivan.—This case had been adjourned to the ground. The defendant was ordered to turn the Water down his tail race instead of the present course, and to pay the costs of Court. Rowe and party. The Warden having visited the ground, refused this application. Shine and party. —*■ Registration granted, upon condition that the water be flumed over the creek, and the water to be let down the creek upon the order of the Warden, to aid in disposing of the tailings. The application of the same party for two dams was granted, subject to the condition of placing proper yauge boxes.

C. Haines and party applied for a head-race from tbe Progressive Company's dam, and terminating at their dam. The application was objected to by Hunter and party and the Progressive Company. Registration granted, upon condition that the Progressive Company be allowed to raise their dam three feet higher, and that Hunter and party's rights are satisfied.