REEFTON.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 914, 16 January 1872, Page 2

REEFTON.

(PROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) Saturday, January 13.

Since the arrival of the Warden here on the 6th, until the sitting of the Court on the Bth, miners flocked into Reefton, and, when the sitting of the Court took place, there could not have been fewer than 300 miners about the town. The Court sat in the billiardroom in Barker's store, and the crowded state of the room, ill ventilation, and heat of the day, combined to make the room overpoweringly hot and disagreeable. The first case called on was CATO T. WISE.

This was a dispute in respect to the • ownership of a business section, both I parties claiming to have purchased the I right to occupy. The defendant took I it up, and the plaintiff sued for illegal j occupation. After hearing evidence the Warden gave judgment for the complainant with costs. M'LEAN AND PARTY V. M'CLOT. This was an action to recover the sum of £69 from the defendant as his stiare ot iu the claim known as Rody Ryan's on Kelly's line of reef. Mr. Pitt appeared for the defendant and denied liability. The complainant j gave evidence that M'Cloy and his j mates in conjunction with Kelly and | party, agreed with him and others to give a certain interest in the claim in consideration of crushing machinery being placed upon the ground within a certain time. John Power, a witness for the complainant, and one of the shareholders, gave evidence of the agreement. It was made at his hut in July last. The plaintiff agreed to put machinery on the ground on condition that the outlay was returned with a certain percentage. The claim was in eleven shares, and M'Lean was to get two shares for supplying the machinery. An agreement was signed by all parties except M'Cloy and another, who refused to do so until consulting a solicitor as to the legality of the agreement, and M'Lean said that unless they did signed would never consent to allow any other party to place machinery on the ground. Rody Ryan, another witness for the plaintiff, said that M'Cloy paid part of the expenses for consulting Mr Gruiness, but when the opinion came back he would not sign. Mr Pitt, for the defence, argued that as the defendant did not sign the agreement, he could not be made liable for the expenses claimed. M'Lean placed the defendant in tho witness box, when he admitted that he had consented to sign the agreement if M'Lean would destroy an old agreement in his possession. Defendant also admitted that he sold out his interest in the claim owing to the provocation he had received from M'Lean.

The Warden, in summing up, agreed with the counsel for the defence that as the defendant did not sign the agreement he could not be made liable for any expenses incurred by the plaintiff or his mates, and he must non-suit plaintiff with costs. JOHNSTON V. BOSS. This was an action to compel the defendant to give up a half-share in a mimng claim to the complainant, who claimed to be a partner. Mr. Pitt appeared for the complainant, who was non-suited. »HXTBY V. ABMSTBONO. An action to recover a share in a claim alleged to have been given for services rendered. Mr Pitt defended. At the request of the complainant the evidence given at a previous hearing of the case was read. The complainant Btated that the defendant and his mate agreed to give him an equal half-share in their claim for managing the legal business of the claim at the time, but now refused to acknowledge him as a partner.

Mr W. Pitt argued that the agreement was illegal and therefore invalid. The learned counsel cited several cases of note in support of his argument. The plaintiff also cited various authorities in support of his case. The Warden said the plaintiff had better give evidence before addressng of the case.

Mr Pitt, for the defendant, contended that the complainant had been guilty of champerty, as it was clear that he had maintained a suit in consideration of a bargain for a part of the thing in dispute, or some profit out of it. The present claim, therefore, could not be maintained.

i The complainant entered into an i argument as to what constituted champerty, and finally the Warden overruled Mr Pitt's objection. Plaintiff handed in the document relating to the agreement which showed the party agreed to give the i complainant a share in their claim if ! he succeeded in winning a case in Court which they had at the time, and they now refused to acknowledge him as a partner in the claim. Plaintiff argued that he was still a partner with the defendants. In an eloquent address, which lasted nearly an hour, he went on to show how the defenfendants.after availing themselvesof his services and giving him no remuneration, had taken advantage of his absence at Napoleon's in not placing his name on the registration certificate. At this stage of the proceedings, the Court adjourned, and resumed at 2 p.m. The Warden then gave judgment, and decreed that the complainant must be non-suited, on the ground of informality in his plaint. HANSON AND PAKTY v. FORBES AND PABTT. The case for the complainant was that the defendants had encroached upon their lease. As there was some difficulty in determining the extent of the encroachment, the Warden recommended that the lease be surveyed afresh. APPLICATIONS FOB LEASES. Clinton and party, lease on Kelly's line, Recommended for a frontage of 600 feet. Power and party, ditto. Recominended subject to any existing rights. James Wenn and party, ditto. Recommended. James and party, ditto. Recommended. Miller and party, ditto, for ground situate west of Adam Smith's line. Application objected to by John Brenuan and Frank M'Lean and party. Miller stated that he pegged out the ground on December 16th. The Warden said that there were three parties who claimed the ground and suggested that Miller should issue a. summons agiiinot the objectors for illegally holding the ground, so as to admit of their respective titles being thoroughly considered. Weston and party, lease on Kelly's line. Recommended. I Robert Guilline, lease, objected to , by Nicholas Bray and John Brennan, j on the ground that the lease was of irregular shape and not in conformity j with the regulations. By the consent of both parties it was agreed to settle the matter in despute outside the Court. F. Federsen, lease. Objected to by Ralph Kelly, on the ground that the proposed claim was not represented. The Warden decreed that the objection would have to take the form of a summons. PROSPECTING AREA. Clinton and party applied for a prospecting area on a new line of reef at the head of Murray Creek. Objected to byM'Groffin and party on the plea that M'G-offiu had pegged out the ground on December sth, being some time before Clinton made the application. The Warden decided that the priority of right must be decided upon a summons. OTHER APPLICATIONS. Dennis Healey and party applied for three men's ground in a claim which had not been represented. Mr Pitt appeared for the applicants. The Warden, however, decided that the matter must be decided by a summons issued against the original holders for illegal occupation. Joseph Cochrane applied for the share of James Thorpe in a claim on Kelly's line of reef. Mr Pitt appeared for Thorpe, and stated that he would produce the registered certificate of the claim containing Thorpe's name among the list of shareholders. The Warden decided that the right must be contested by a summons issuing against Thorpe. Mr Pitt agreed to accept service of summons, as his client was in Auckland. Numerous minor applications were disposed of, and the Court adjourned. Since the new year the number of arrivals daily in Reefton have «iyen the place quite the appearance of a rush; and the hotel accommodation has been quite inadequate to supply the wants of the numbers flocking in. I have it upon good authority°that the Provincial Government have received a revenue of £IOOO during the past month for the issue of miners' rights, business licenses, fees and deposits from this district alone.