WARDEN’S COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 December 1940, Page 4

WARDEN’S COURT

RESERVED DECISION GIVEN Stating that he could find no evidence of collusion, upon which the defence was based, the Warden (Mr. G. G. Chisholm) to-day gave judgment for the plaintiff in the case heard in the Warden Court at Greymouth last Tuesday, in which Daniel Dennehy of Barry town, (Mr. W. D. Taylor) proceeded against John Morressey, of Wataroa (Mr. J. W. Hannan) seeking (1) a declaration that defendant holds special dredging

claim license No. 6029 in trust for plaintiff; (2) an order that the license No. 6029 be transferred to the plaintiff; (3) am! order that the license No. 6029 be delivered to the plaintiff forthwith and (4) costs of the action. In his reserved judgment the Warden said that the facts had not been in dispute, defendant relying on the legal defence that the contract between the parties was one against public interest, and also a collusive arrangement. In order to succeed on the first ground, defendant would have to satisfy hinithat the application was by prearrangement,, with the object of defeating the Mining Act, but'he could find no evidence of that, nor could he find evidence of collusion. ;He thought that it was a straight out application for a dredging license, together with a certificate of abandonment. It seemed obvious that defend - and thought he Had some opposition.' It was not for him (the Warden) .at this stage to go into whether the plaintiff had a valid objection, but defendant decided to compromise it, and public interest did riot seem ■ to come into the matter. He (the Warden) thought that the contract, between the parties was a perfectly straightforward contract, and even if the consideration for the contract turned out to be valueless, it was sufficient at the time. Plaintiff must therefore succeed. Judgment would be given for plaintiff in the terms of the statement of claim, with costs according to scale.