WARDEN'S COURT, WOOLSHED.

Bruce Herald, Volume III, Issue 73, 31 August 1865, Page 9

WARDEN'S COURT, WOOLSHED.

Monday, August 28th. . (Before Charles Worthington, Esq., Judge.) 1 Joseph Inchcliff was charged by James Adam with knowingly mining' for gold. on> section 2, block 53, Tokomairiro, without the consent of the owner, Alexander, Adam: ■ -. Mr Jones appeared for the plauxtiffj Mr. .G-illon for the defendant '; ' ' - f .. '■"'■\ James Adam examined : deposed that he had purchased the land originally, and afterwards transferred it to hisbrother^'wlioTived in Britain, and from whom iie held a power of .attorney. ; He : had warhead tlie ' defendant ' off the ground, but all- tlie 'miners' : oh ' the property appeared to- have conspired against him to defy him.. r ; .' , - In cross-examination, plaintiff said he was a member of the Provincial Council. He had} on the-lTthinst:-^ sworn-an -information before Mr. Dewe, R.M., Tokomairiro, Tin ' which section 2, blodk 53, was. described; as his* own property. • It had been transferred to his brother long before that day and the erown graoiV applied for in his brother's name. Holding the power of attorney !he „ believed he had a, right to describe it ras his own, and would! have done so in the present case had it not been for the" advice of Ms solicitor. ;He , had never given 4ilie defendant written notice that he or his, brother claimed the land, or that it ; ; was .private property; He had only told hinvto be off at once, nov had he ever given him permission to mine there. He knew a person of the name; of ' Williams 'whC-at One time collected rent :for him from the miners. He had refused to pay Education Rate for the land, saying Ihe had.nothing to do with it. At that time he had not the power of but had private letters from his brother which gave him power, he held; to collect rent. His Brother did not want miners on the property at all.* There ' waTs no Crown '.' grant for if, and it had been purchased more than four years. It had been brought under tlie new act. .. J. E. Brown stated that he had seen the defendant at work in his claim, and" that it was prisection;2, block' s3. " ' ; Mr. 'Gillon applied for a non-suit, on the ground that there was no- evidence of the title of Alexander Adaims^ ! and that as there was no Crown grant, ; by the debision- of the ' Supreme Court in. the Queen v. Jones, the title had reverted to the Crown; "the: conditions riot haying been complied ! with within four years from the date of T pur- .." chase. . " ;. ; . ■ • ; : • ■ ■ ..-■. The Magistrate refused the non-suit, and the defendant, who was called and examined, stated that he knew:the ground to be private property, or at least believed, it to be so. ! The Magistrate inflicted a fine of £1, and costs, and remarked that although no notice to leave was necessary the defendant appeared to have been ,warned on the 27th . July, and. again on the 17th of August. M'-Nab v. Bennetto and party. £20 damages, for mining on leasehold property of the plaintiffs'. Mr. Gillon for the defendants. ; . . The plaintiff failing to prove that he was in any way entitled to the ground in dispute a non-suit was ordered. .'-..,.' , ' : "~" \