RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 988, 19 July 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Tuesday, July 16. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) CIYIL CASES. Walter Lavette v. Schmidt.—Claim for £4 6s lOd, goods supplied. Defendant did not appear. Judgment given for amount claimed. Payment to be made, by plaintiff's consent, in weekly instalments of ss. Basil Connell v. Eugene Joseph O'Conor. —Claim for £l9 Ss for removal of building: and supply of materials. The defendant had filed an affidavit, stating that his presence was required at Wellington as M.H.8.. on the 16th instant, and claiming the privilege of protection from legal action for ten days before and after the openiug and close of tho session, granted to members of the House, by the Privilege Act, 1866, clause xi. An enlargement of time for service of summons was granted. Lavette v. Smithson.—Claim for £2 4s 7d. No appearance of defendant. Judgment for amount claimed and costs'. Jones v. West.—Claim for £3 9s. Balance due for work and labor. £1 Is paid into court. Plaintiff claimed wages at the rato of 10s per day and keep, for driving a baker's cart for defendant. Had worked nine days and received in part payment 10s in cash, and receipt for old standing account for lis. Defendant pleaded that the plaintiff had only been employed for two hours daily during four days of the week, and on the other two days for about three and a half hours only. On one day when the plaintiff was absent, another man had done his work for ss, and expressed himself satisfied. The amount paid into Court was at the rate of 5s per day. The Court ruled, that though the charge was high, there had been no evidence of agreement for a less sum, and that it did not seem glaringly exorbitant. Defendant should have protected himsolf by a specific agreement with plaintiff. Judgment was therefore yiven for amount claimed.

WESTPOST WAEDEN'S COTJET. (Before J. Giles, Esq., "Warden.) Tuesday, July 16. Robert Winter v. George Goodall.— Mr Fisher for defendant. Disputed title to a certain piece of spare or abandoned ground, adjoining the claims held by complainant and defendant at German. Terrace. The complainant, who holds a beneficial iuterest in Tiller and party's lease, pegged off on the 17th June a double area on the site in dispute, making application for protection and postiug notice on the 19th, in the name, and under the miner's right, of a mate named Olson. Defendant subsequently applied for the same ground and posted his notices on the 2Gth Tune. In the meantime complainant's application for the ground was refused by the Court on the objection, made by defendant, that Olston had not transferred his interests in a claim previously registered under the same miner's right. Complainant afterwards made a new application for the ground, holding also protection for a tuuuel in Tiller's claim, in which he now works on contract, claiming protection for the ground in dispute on the plea that it cannot be worked until the tunnel is finished. The defendaut

alleged that he had first pegged off a double area on the ground on the 9th Juno, but had not at that time a miner's right, under which he was entitled to hold it. On tho 2Gth June, under a new minor's right, he repegged a double area and mado application for protoction, which application, had not yet been heard.

Mr Fisher for the defendant insisted that the complainant had no right to recover, first because ho could not claim any benefit under the first pegging by himself and Olson, unless it could bo shown that Olson's miner's right was free to protect the claim. Complainant could not first put Olson's name and Olson's miner's right on the application, and when that was refused, on the ground that Olson's right was not available, then fall back on his own right and say he was entitled to hold half the ground as an ordinary claim ; and the complaiuant couid not now require that he should only lose half the claim aa surplus ground. Secondly, because he had abandoned any right he might have had, prior to the defendant, by re-pegging and taking up the ground subsequently to him. For it appeared that on the 17th June the complainant and Olson pegged it out and posted notice of application under Olson's right, but the application was refused on the Ist July, on the plea that Olson had no available miner's right. Defendant, knowing the holding by Olson to be bad, pegged out the ground for himself on the 26th June. Afterwards, on the 2nd July, the complainant comes and pegs out the same double area himself, under his own miner's right, thereby acknowledging that his former taking up of the ground was bad, and that he abandoned all claim under it; and therefore he could now only claim after the defendant. Judgment was given for the defendant. The Warden stating that he should decline to grant a double area on the particular ground in dispute, and that either party requiring it must be prepared to hold it under miner's rights. APPLICATIONS. Protection for water-race Hgul. Struck out. Protection for claims—D. Leslie and Jane Cochrane. Granted. Protection for business sites W. Lavette and A. Carne Granted. Application for extended claim —J. C. lleid and Company. Recommended. Application for agricultural lease. — T. J. Jones. Adjourned for survey.