SHORTLAND. WARDEN'S COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Lowther Broad, Esq., Judge.]

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXIV, Issue 3512, 17 October 1868, Page 4

SHORTLAND. WARDEN'S COURT.— Wednesday. [Before Lowther Broad, Esq., Judge.]

JENNINGS V. BRAC'KENBtJRY* No appearauce of either party. Case dismissed. ■WTOKBAM V. DOWNES AND OTHERS. Mr. Beveridge for defendants. Thi3 was au application made by the plaintiff to recover a portion of ground alleged to have been encroached upon by the defendants in the adjoining claim, the Clare Castle. '1 he defence tended to show that the defendants, who had taken up the Clare Castle subsequent to the plaintiff pegging off the Golden Rose, had included the ground in dispute, consequent upon the pegs shown by the plaintiff as the boundary pega of the Golden Koae Claim. There was a large amount of evidence taken in this c»se, which was uot, howerer, of any particularpublic interest. The Court was of opinion that sufficient evidence had not been shown ou the part of the defendants to upset the plaintiff's right to the disputed gronnd. THOMAS WILSON V. MITCHKLL AND MILNO. This case was brought by the plaintiff to prove his < right to a dividing mateship with the defendants. Mr. Macdonald for plaintiff; and Mr. Cash for defendants. Several witnesses were heard for the plantiff and defendants ; case was adjourned until Friday at 10 o'clock.

Thursday, nelson v. mitchell. Mr. Cash for plaintiff, and Mr. Dodd for defendant. The Court decided that costs of action should be charged against the estate.

DWYER T. QUINXJLW. This was an adj )urned c <se from last Court-day. Mesars. Macdonald and Dodd appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cary for defendant. The Court deferred its decision until Friday morning.

WESTON" AND PARTY V. MCINNBENY AND ANOTHER. Mr. Macdonald and Mr.Weaton for complainants; Mr. Dodd for defendants. In this csie the Court was asked to assess the amount of damage done by the unlawful possession of two shares in the Duke of Edinburgh Claim. The Court ruled that no man could take up more ground than his miner's ri£ht permitted, and the defendants had a right to surplus ground ; but the question of how much, if any, surplus ground there was could only be settled by being sifted in Court. So far as defendants are concerned, the decision before given remains in statu quo ; but then they had no right to eater upon any part they chose, and lay claim to it. He could only decide upon the amount of surplus by an action brought into Court upon the point. He would decide that defendants have a right to surplus ground, but that they move off the part of the claim they are now occupying, lnis verdict does not carry costs.

HAEKINS V WAEBBN. Mr. Macdonald lor plaintiff; Mr. Bereridge appeared (for Mr. Dodd) for defendant. The Court gaye judgmcut for plaintiff.