SHORTLAND.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3509, 14 October 1868, Page 4

SHORTLAND.

WARDEN'S COURT.— Monday. [Before Major Keddell, Warden.] I/EIGHTON Y. HOWS. No appearance on the part of tho defendant. This was a claim to recover wages due from defeudnnt to plaintiff for work'n^ a half share on his account. Judgment fc "plaintiff fori"4 75., and coib~. BALDWIN Y. CLIFFORD. No appearance of dt-fendant. Mr. Dodd for plaintiff. This was a claim to be put in absolute po w ion of an equal half-shire in the Onqueror Claim, on the ground that fc hal b~3n abandonrl for fclie space of six hours. The share had beeu taken possensiou of on Thursday, the l*t October. Defendant hid subsequently . -taken possession of tbe share, and the case was now brought to jik the Coivt to put the plaintiff in absolute possession. Plaint ff deposed to having himself served defendant with a copy of the summons produced. Tbe Court said tb"^ case came under the 6th rule of the Regulations. By the absence of defendant the Court allowed the cay to go by default. From the evidence of a witness it appeared that the share had been improperly worked. Judgment would pass for the plaintiff. '•'his cisc was ndjourac I. DISON Y. RICHARDS. Adjourned until Wednesday next on payment of £1, coat", on the part of plaintiff. WILSON Y. MITCHELL. Adjourned by consent until Weduesday nexfc. JONES Y. KINGSTON. Mr. WhitaUer, jim., for [.laiutiff. This was an action to recover the amount of a promissory note given by defendant to plaintiff. The pUmtiff had sold a share m the Kennbaulc Claim to defendant for £50, £10 of which was p <I in cash, the remainder b^mg a prumiasoiy uute for £40 1 the amount of which wa=i sought to be recovered. The defendant hid tuktn poc ession of the hl>ne The defence was to the effect '•ha!; plaintiff had agreed to take back the share ii defendant did not approve of it. Defendant made a lengthy statement to the effect that he was a new chum on the diggings, and that he had fallen in with the plaintiff, who, ho found, came from the same part of the old country as himself. Plaintiff had represented h»msel£ as hard up, and defendant bad lent him £10, an.l subsequently agreed to buy the share for £50, on the understanding fiat plaintiff was to take it back within a month if defendant did uot approve of the purchase. He had found the share did nob answer expectations, and had eudeavoured to indnoe pi uu tiff to take it back and return his £10 aud the promissory note. Judgment for plaintiff, with costa.