WARDEN'S COURT, SHORTLAND.—April 15. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) [Before Allan Baillie, Esq., Warden, and four Assessors.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3356, 18 April 1868, Page 4

WARDEN'S COURT, SHORTLAND.— April 15. (FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT.) [Before Allan Baillie, Esq., Warden, and four Assessors.]

WALLAC* Y. COKJI7HOUN. Mr. Macdonald Appeared for plaintiff; Mr. Dodd for defendant. This wu an adjourned case, the details of which appeared at the time. After reading the evidence then adduced, the general feature of which was a dispute arising out of a misunderstanding between plaintiff and defendant as to dividing mated, further evidence was elicited of an unimportant nature. The circumstances of the case having been put to the assessors, it was decided that a dividing mateship existed. HUDSOIT Y. GRAHAM. Adjourned till next Wednesday. " * - MCISAACS Y. MOINTOSH. Mr. MacCormick, on behalf of the plaintiff, opened the case to the assessor*. A seventh share of a claim on the north side of Mclsaaos's prospecting claim had been purchased by plaintiff from the defendant for the sum of £20 : £1 was paid at the tdme,and £5 a few days after. McTsaacs was placed in possession at once. Four shares had been purchased by Messrs. McTsaacs, who all went on the ground and took possession. They worked the claim until they struck gold, when Mclntosh went to Angus Molsaacs and told him that in consequence of the balance of the purchase money not having been paid be- would retake possession of the share and refund til* £6 paid. However, a letter passed from Molntosh to Mclsaaos demanding the balance, which was refused in consequence of part of it being in a cheque. Mclntosh obtained an injunction, and the work ceased from that time. j Angus Mclsaacs, sworn: I hold a miner's right. Enow the defendant. Ha was a shjgtholder in a claim on the Tapu Creek in FebrawyTasfc. I pur. chased a seventh share on 20th February last for £20. , , , m Mr. Maodonald objected to this mode of examinaturn, inasmuch as a written agreement had passed between the plaintiff and defendant, which should have been brought into Court.Examination resumed: Got possession the same day* I purchased from Mclntosb, who put me on th. ground, Went to .work same day. Paid £6. Wa» from 20th to.th* 29th February. A, written agreement .passed- between us In the transaction. , Did not o give up poss*«ion .willingly. Cawy and. f >Mclntosh got an injunction to stop work. Was in possession at the timt. I fehtn went to Shortland to get au

iDJ unction to stop them. When I returned Mclotosh was on the ground. Cannot sweat that be 'took possession. If I went to work he would stop me. I tendered the balanoe of the purchase money, Which he would not accept, as there wm a cheque for part payment. By Mr. Macdonald : Went on the claim the day after the purchase. Was on the claim the day £ purchased. Molntqsh toM us to go to work, and' not allowthe share -to be jumped. Daniel Molsaaci, sworn : Watpresent when Angus bought the share. Saw Molntoah give him possession of the claim. Took formal possession the nexb day. The claim improved in value after we bought it. We struck gold. I believe that I left the agreement in Mr. Maodonald's office. (Mr. Macdonald, in answer to Mr. MacCormick, said that he had not the agreement.) Onlthe receipt of Mclntosh's letter, demanding the balance of the purchase money, my brother tendered it to him. The injunction was taken off my share, and nothing prevented my working. Alexander Mclaaaof, sworn, corroborated the previous evidence. Bruce Morpeth, sworn, stated that he was present when the balanoe of the purohase money was tendered by Moliaacs, and refused by Molntosh. Heard Mclsaacs say that this was the first time the demand was made by Mclntosh. . Frederick Dufour gave evidence as to the contents of tbe agreement. All the agreements were similar to the one now produced :— " Tapu Creek, February 20, 1868.— 1, Daniel Carey, do hereby transfer one full seventh part or share of claim situated on the left-hand side of the Tapu Creek. beins N0..l north of Mclaaacs the prospectors' claim, comprising an extent of aix men's ground, to Joseph Mclsaacs, for the sum of twenty pounds sterling ; and I hereby acknowledge the receipt of one pound as part payment; the remainder to be paid on Tuesday or Welnesday following.— (Signed) Daniel Cabby." By Mr. Macdonald : Know that by agreement Mclntosh sold a share to Mclsaacs. This closed the case for the plaintiff. Alexander Molntosh, sworn : The terms of the agreement respecting the sale of my share in the Southern Cross Claim were never carried out. There was » written agreement between us. (Agreement produced by Mr. Macdonald, who tendered the docuznent as evidence.) William Carruthws gave evidence in affirmation of the agreement having been broken on the part of Mclsaacs, in not fulfilling the terms of it. i By Mr. MacCormick : Saw the Messss. Mclsaacs working on the ground. Never heard Mclutosh tell them to go. Mr. Macdonald, before addressing the assessors, would explain how he became possessed of the agreement, which was supposed to have been lost. A parcel of papers had been left at his office, among which the document in question was discovered, and now placed in his hands. He would now call upon tbe assessors to take into their consideration the nonfulfilment of the terms of tbii agreement rendering the contract null and void. His client did not give possession on any other terms than those expressed in the agreement. - Mr. MacCormick, addressing the assessors, said that if under this agreement possession was given to the buyer, and by working in the claim for a certain time he was entitled to his share in the claim. Furthermore, the receipt of money in part payment proved that a purchase had been made, and the balance could be recovered by the usual proceedings. Judgment was reserved until Monday next. The Court then adjourned for half an hour,

JOHN K*=mp v. JOHN DOWNINa. Mr. Macdonald appeared for plaintiff ; Mr. Dodd for defendant. The evidence in the plaintiff's case went to prove that he should participate in the gold taken out of a claim worked by the defendant, situate on the Waiotahi Creek, on the plea that he was a dividing mate of the defendant's, having assisted him with food, &c , while he remained in the tent. The defendant pleaded no knowledge of an understanding having ever existed between himself and the plaintiff as to dividing profit* with him that might arise out of any claim he was working. The claim in which the plaintiff worked yielded dividends which were never tendered to or claimed by the defendant. The defendant's claim is known as the Great Republic, and ranks among the paying claims of the goldfield. Verdict for the defendant, with coats.

Apkil 16. [Before Alum Baillie, Eiq., Warden.] HOWJE AND ANOTHER Y. CRAWFORD AND ANOTHEK. Mr. Macdonald. appeared for plaiatiffa j Mr. MacCormick for defendants. la this case Crawford and party sought to obtain a title to a piece of surplus ground pegged off by them on the 13th$Ejgbruary, adjoining the Ducbess of Kent and Banicrof England claims. The plea set up by the defendants was to the effect that the ground was not available out of the claim held by the Duchess of Kent party. Several witnesses were examined, the chief evidence being that of the Government surveyor, which wenb to prove that surplus ground was availab'e somewhere. The plaintiffs complained that, whilst in possession of the surplus ground, the defendants drew their pegs and annoyed them during the time they were at work. The defendants justified themselves on the plea that the plaintiff* were in illegal possession. An injunction had been granted to the defendants for a period of seven days, which Mr. Macdonald applied to the Court to renew, in order that time should be allpwed for a survey to be made, and that, in the erent of surplus ground existing, the plaintiffs should be entitled to it. Granted. " JAMBS MCCONOCHIE Y. JOHN HOLDSWOETHT. Mr. Macdonald appeared for plaintiff. This was a case in which defendant was absent from hii ground for 24 hours, in consequence of which plaintiff took possession, after having applied to the Court for permission to do to. Mr. Macdonald brought forward evidence that the share taken by the plaintiff was a seventh share in the Whau Claim, and that it had been manned by only six men on the day the share was taken up. The defendant stated that the share in dispute was a half working share, he having sold a half sleeping share. The Court inflicted a penalty of £10 on the plaintiff.

JOHN JAMES Y. MATTHEW DELANBT. Mr. Maodonald for plaintiff; Mr. Dodd for defendant. In the absence of plaintiff Mr. Macdonald i examined defendant, who admitted that £20 will be due to plaintiff when certain events occur. It appeared that defendant purchased a share in a claim for £40, £21 of which had been paid, leaving the balance to be paid out of the first crushing. This crushing realised half-an-onnce of gold, so that it was not possible the agreement could be carried out. Plaintiff nonsuited, with costs.