WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 1018, 1 November 1872, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) Tuesday, October 29. Ward v. Hughes—Mr Pisher for defendant. Disputed right to occupy business site at the corner of Palmerston and Henley streets. The defendant had held prior possession, first under protection certificates, renewed

from time to time, and afterwards under business license, but the complainant had jumped the ground and placed material thereon, and now claimed £lO damages from defendant for trespass, and that he should be ordered to desist from any further interference. In support of his claim the complainant gave evidence, by himself and witnesses, that on the 24th September the defendant had not renewed application for protection and that he, complainant, on the 11th October, had taken out a license and placed building material on the ground ja dispute, commencing to -erect a cottage thereon. That on the 12 th defendant had ordered him off, and had then and subsequently by his servants, palled down complainant's building and put the materials off the section. In further support of his case complainant referred to precedents in the case Mulcahy v. Walhalla Gold Mining Company, and to M'Farlaue's reports, page 151, and also quoted Sections I. and V. of tee Public Eeserve3 Act, 1854. Mr Fisher raisedan objection that the ground was included in a reserve for public utility as notified by the Commissioners of Crown Lands in the Nelson Gazette of 17th February last. Brewster v. T. Bailie.—Mr Fisher for _ complainant. This case was similar in detail to the last. The defendant, had held possession of section No. 187 Wharf street, to which the complainant afterwards set up a claim, and now alleged that defendant had encroached thereon, wherefore complainant claimed that he should be adjudged to have trespassed, and be ordered to remove therefrom with his servants, goods, and chattels. Mr Fisher raised the same objection as in the previous case. The Warden deferred judgment in either case until the following morning.

At the opening of the Court on Wednesday The Warden said an objection had been raised by counsel that the ground in question in these cases was outside the jurisdiction of the Warden's Court, being comprised within the limits of a reserve for public utility declared by the Waste Lands Board of the Province of Nelson in February last. The Goldfields Act enacted that where any Crown Land should be declared a public reserve it should be excepted from occupation under miners' rights or business licenses. The only question now was whether the Waste Lands 13oard had the power to make such reserves on goldfields. There seemed to be some doubt upon that question, but without going into arguments the Warden said he should assume that the action of the Board was valid, and should decline to exercise jurisdiction •over any land within the reserve in •question. Any parties who might be advised that the contrary view was ■correct, could apply to the Supremo Court for a mandamus, and the Wa3te Lands Board could then show cause ow the other side, so that the question •might be settled by the only competent tribunal.