CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 847, 8 August 1871, Page 2

CHARLESTON.

"WARDEN'S COURT. Thursday, August 3. (Before C. Broad, Esq., "Warden.) llarle v. HaU : la this case plaintiff sought to have the certificate of a branch race of the defendant declared forfeited. Mr Salter appeared as agent for the defendant, who is at present out of the colony. Mr Shapter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Donne for defendant. Jonathan Harle, stated: I know the defendant; he is a holder of water rights on the Nine Mile beach. I remember the time that he pasted the notices; he said that it was to keep another party from building a dam. The race has not been cut, and there has been nothing done since he got the certificate. I have passed several times since and never saw any water running down. Cross-examined by Mr Donne: I know Hall's dam, at the back of the Racecourse Hotel. lam positive no race has been cut since Hall got the grant. I can swear that there has been no water for two or three months previous to the last month. By Mr Shapter': I went with Salter and "Watts to' where the notice was posted; they did not know where it was.

Henry Baulke, stated \ I know the branch race. I have an interest in the race from which the branch race heads. Watts is in occupation of the race, but I am looking after the water. I sent water down the branch race about three weeks ago, on the occasion of a flood. I cannot swear that I have done so before.

By Mr Donne: I have mates ; they have never turned it down. If I had not turned the water down it might have burst the Lngoon. I know Sidney Crosbie. Ido not know if he turned any water down. I remember Hall applying for the race; there is some cutting done at the site for which he applied. Mr Kelling, the clerk of the court, was called and produced the notice and also the block of the certificate of registration, No. 972, granted to F. Hall.

Mr Donne raised some technical objections, which were overruled by the Bench.

Judgment was given for the plaintiff, by a decree of forfeiture, on the ground that the race had not been completed. Carr v. Ballam.—Plaintiff asked for a decree of forfeiture of town section 551.

Mr Donno appeared for plaintiff and Mr Shapter defended. Mr Donne said that it had been agreed that the evidence taken on tho previous case, heard last Monday, should be admitted.

Mr Broad read tho evidence that was called npon that occasion by Carr. William Carr, stated: I am the complainant in this case. I was served with a summons after I pegged out the ground. I subsequently received notice that the case was withdrawn.

Mr Broad having re:id the evidence, taken for defendant, in the former case, Mr Shapter declined to c"a!l any further evidence, and counsej on each side then addressed the Court.

Mr Broad, in giving judgment, said that the case was one "in which a monetary penalty might be substituted for forfeiture. He therefore ruled that defendant pay a penalty of £5 in lieu of forfeiture, half cJf which would be paid to the plaintiff.