CHARLESTON.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 901, 16 December 1871, Page 2

CHARLESTON.

(fbom oub own coßeespondent.) The attention of the Warden* Court was occupied for a considerable time on Monday last, by the hearing of the case Elizabeth Wilson v. George and Jane Brou, in which plaintiff sought to obtain possession of, and eject defendants from, a business site on Darkies Terrace Koad. Mr Shapter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Home for defendants. From the evidence brought forward by plaintiff it appeared that in April last she had an interview with Mr Sutton relative to the purchase of the Junction Hotel situated on the Darkies Terrace Eoad. She wished to have the house purchased in some other person's name, as she owod some witnesses expenses which had been incurred by her in a case heard in the Supreme Court at Nelson some time since. At the time of the interview with Mr Sutton, she offered to pay him £lO deposit, and asked him to hold the house in his name jthis he refused. She then went ' to the house of a Mrs Jones where she saw Brou, who told her he could purchase the Junction Hotel for £ls. She then asked him to go with her, and upon the way she gave him £2O Mr Sutton was not then at home. She was afterwards present when Brou paid Mr Sutton £2O, and eventually Mr Sutton gave her the key and let her into possession of the house. She subsequently borrowed the remaining £5 from a man named Rody. She gave it to Brou to pay Mr Sutton, and she went shortly afterwards and asked Mr Sutton if he had received it. About two months ago Brou came and asked her if she would allow him to remain in the house until he got a place. He came a few days afterwards, accompanied by Mrs Brou. She had requested them to leave, but they refused to do so, and when she went to get a summons they locked her out. She had never paid Brou any rent, but she had given him £8 to get a business license and £1 for a miner's right. Brou had told Mrs Jones that plaintiff had given him £ls, and that he had not given her a receipt, the money was to purchase the Junction Hotel. He subsequently said he had received £2O A witness named Patrick O'Connor, heard Brou say that he had received £8 or £9 from the plaintiff, and that he had offered her £3O to leave the house in consideration of the improvements she had made. For the defence Jane Brou stated that plaintiff came to Brou three or four times and asked him to get her a place or she would break her heart or commit suicide. Plaintiff had never given Brou a shilling, as she had never had it to give. Brou denied having ever received any money whatever from plaintiff, except some for rent, which she was to pay at the rate of 10s a week when he purchased the house; and, in fact, his evidence was a mass of contradiction to that sworn bv plaintiff. The Warden reserved judgment until the following morning, when he delivered it in favour of plaintiff, as although the evidence was so contradictory, the weight of it was in favour of plaintiff. He, therefore, gave judgment that the defendants should withdraw forthwith, but did not allow any costs. Simpson and party v. Lord and party. Plaintiffs sought to have the certificates of registration for a dam and race from the Totara river cancelled, upon the ground that no work had ever been done in connection with them. Defendant's admitted that no work had been done, but stated that they were waiting until another party had proceeded with their race. The Warden said that the Regulations just met this case, as by Lord not having commenced his race within one calendar month, he forfeited his superiority of right. Judgment for plaintiffs, their right to be prior to the one granted to defendants.