SUPREME COURT-CIVIL SITTINGS.
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams). Benjamin Nayior v. The Undaunted Gold Mining and Water Race Com,.any, LmiTED.-Claim, L3W, jMM«pp«. Sir R Stout, with him Mr GUkison, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Haggitt forde*eThenplamt no* set forth (!) that plaintiff is J2» >s a deferred payment selec or of a farm at Matakanui Plat, near Ophir, contalg 894 acres of land, and has spent C oKZ known as Thompson See? or Spottiß Creek flow- Ithrough part of the said land, and thatplaintiff is entitled to the flow of the yrater of the said creek pure in rjuality, and to have the use of the said *»ter for c*ttle to drink and for other purposes without the same being polluted or disturbed ; # (3) tftat pendants hold and occupy a B P ec '^ cla ; m for gold mining purposes at Tinkers, \°." Aether with' tail-races lead ng from said claim ; (4) that 4efendaiitß own and occupy iwater-race commencing at Shephard and Coal Creeks, which would naturally flow Into Chatto Creek, being in another, water-
shed, for five Government sluice-heads of water ; (;*) that the defendants on eight days in October last and three days in November diverted water from the said creeks and used the same on their claim, and also used thereon watev diverted by them from Thompson Creek, and also threw sand and caused to flow large quantities of tailings and debris consisting of earth and stones and water from their claim into Spott's Creek abave plaintiffs land, and permitted the same to flow into Spottis Creek ; (6) the creek by defendants' said illegal acts flowed over plaintiff's land 'and deposited thereon sludge, gravel, atones, and debris, ivashed sway fart, of thr; noil, destroyed the, seeds :v:u\ crop:; vriwwii;/ .1:1 pluiiniil'.') I;i!iil, (i.-iiiiiiyyd the itir.jii.-; thereon, wilted .i[> the <reol; where il. runs tlironyli jiliiintiiT'.-i lu-ni, mid the viale, of vlie rreek lolii)ivingni<il> , iiii< , illr.-(li-iiivail<ivcciil:iititilf'» land and did further damage, and became foul and noxious, and unfit for plaintiff's cattle to drink—whereby plaintiff has Buffered much loss and damage, and has been delayed from properly working the said land; (7) plaintiff has repeatedly been damaged by similar acts of the defendants, and has frequently warned them against such acts, but the defendants have persisted in perpetuating such wrongs. The plaintiff, therefore, asked for an injunction to restrain defendants from discharging, or permitting to be discharged, into Spottis Creek, above plaintiff's land, any tailings, debris, or matter from other watersheds; and plaintiff also claimed L3OO damages.
The statement of defence set forth that defendants admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the statement of claim; but deniedall the allegations in paragraphs 5, 6, and 7. They further denied that any illegal act or omission of theirs caused the damage complained of by plaiutiff. They also alleged that they discharged all water, tailings, and debris from their claim on to a piece of land set apart by proclamation for the deposit of tailings and debris from gold workings, and that they did not How into Spottis Creek. That on the days mentioned in the statement of claim Spottis Creek was in flood, and that in consequence of the course of the creek having been altered by persons other than defendants large quantities of gravel, sand, and debris were, without any neglect of defendants, carried down the creek and deposited on plaintiff's land, further, that the damage was caused and brought about by plaintiff's own negligence in interfering and diverting the natural channel of the creek on his land, by reason of which the free flow of water, gravel, and debris which came down on the days he complained of, and on others when the creek was in flood, Was impeded, the bed of the creek was silted up, and the creek was made to overflow and deposit sludge, gravel, stones, and debris on plaintiff's land, and to wash away soil therefrom. Evidence in this case was being given as we went to press, and the hearing of the case will extend over to-morrow. Bank of New Zealand v. Wilson, Taine, and Co.—ln this case, which was decided in favor of defendants on Thursday last, Sir R. Stout said thai the parties had agreed to the terms of the judgment. The defendants allowed a deduction from their judgment for LG.OOOof four items—viz.,amountof overdraft, L 1,540 15s 4d; interest, 1,43 lis Id ; amount claimed in the other action, L 905 0s 7d, with interest L 25 Ss 3d; total, L 2.574 15s 3d. The defendants also allowed on other overdue bills LSI 96s 7d. That would leave defendants with judgment for L1.G05 IS3 2d. Then there came the question of costs, and after argument His Honor gave directions as to costs, which costs were of an involved nature.
RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT,
(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)
Findlay and Co. v. .Tames Walker.— Claim, L 3 los lOd, balance of account rendered.—Judgment for plaintiffs by default.
Henry Heckler (Warepa) v. Robert J. Smerdon (Winton).— An summons. Broadbent and Jamieson, of Winton, claimed that a mare seized by the bailiff under a distress warrant in the case of Heckler v. Smerdon was their (Broadbent and Jamieson's) property, and did not belong to Smerdon.—Mr Sim, who appeared for Broadbent and Jamieson, applied for j an adjournment to enable Broadbent to attend.—Mr Solomon, counsel for Heckler, asked why the witness was not in attendance to-day.—Mr Sim replied that he had given notice to Mr D. Stewart, of Balclutha, that he intended to apply for an'acljournment. —His Worship asked who Broadbent and Jamieson were. Tho summons did not set forth even their initials, and should never have been issued in its present form.—Mr Solomon said he was instructed that the irregularity spoken of by His Worship was not the only irregular proceeding in the case. He was informed that the horse seized was not the one the bailiff believed he had got.— Smerdon, appealed to by the bailiff, said that the horse taken away was not Anneau d'Or, but a cob that he knew nothing about. His Worship said that if there was an adjournment LI costs should be allowed to Heckler.—This was agreed to by Mr Sim, and the case was adjourned until Wednesday.—Mr Solomon said he should make inquiries, and, if it reully turned out that the horse seized was not the one it was supposed to be, there would, l ie apprehended, be no need to carry the proceedings further. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs A. C. Begg and A. Barr, Justices.) Drunkenness.—A first offender was summarily dealt with. Polly Suiters (one j previous conviction), Maud Hamilton (ten previous convictions), and Jamen o'Flaherty (with fifty-seven previous convictions) were each fined ss, in default twenty-four hours' imprisonment—the last-mentioned having had no charge preferred against him for three years. Using Obscene Language Maud Hamilton was further charged with using obscene language in Princes street on the 22nd inst. Accused pleaded guilty. Ser-geant-major Bevin said that accused created a great disturbance, being very violent and abusive. She was shouting out the words mentioned at the top of her voice.—Accused WBS sentenced to three months' imprisonment, with hard labor. Using Abusive Language.— Alice Divyer was charged by Margaret Whyte with ÜBing abusive and provoking language towards her. Mr Gallaway appeared for defendant, who did not appear, but whose absence was explained by counsel, who said it occurred through a misunderstanding as to where the case was to be heard.—The case was adjourned until to-morrow to give her an opportunity of appearing. A Dangerous Practice.— George Buchanan and William Dormer, two boys, were charged with setting fire to bush on the Town Belt. Accused pleaded guilty.— The father of Buchanan appeared, and stated in extenuation that his son was unaware of tbe fact that he was breaking the law. The boys bad been skating on the ice, and, prompted by a feeling of mischief, they had lighted tussocks and trees. He was unable to control his son, who, however, had never appeared in Court before.—Mr Begg said it was nonsense for a manto say that he possessed no control over his sqn, a boy a few years of age. He (the father) should obtain control Mr Barr: If you can't control your boy the police authorities must control him.—Accused's father : Yes, your Worship.—The accused were severely cautioned, and warned that if they appeared again they would not be, dealt with in such a lenient manner. The lads were then discharged.
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 7941, 24 June 1889
THE COURTS.-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 7941, 24 June 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.