WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXXV, Issue 6010, 13 October 1887, Page 4

WARDEN'S COURT, AHAURA.

Friday, October 7

(Before Major Keddell, R.M., and Warden.) Jones v. Larkin. Suit for reinstatement of rights, become profitable through defendants neglect. Mr Guinness appeared for plaintiff. Mr W. H. Jones, on behalf of Donellan and party, opposed. After some considerable argument between counsel the decree was granted as prayed for, and defendant fined in lists of forfeiture. Samuels v. Garth. Suit similar to previous one. Defendant fined a nominal penalty, and order made as prayed for. KILIKELLT AND OTHERS V. NOLAN. Mr Guinness for plaintiffs. Mr M. Eannen for defendant. The parties reside at Callaghan's Creek, co-partners in a slnicing claim, the suit being brought for dissolution of partnership and sale of the property. The following evidence given at the hearing will explain the difficulty : — Edward Kilkelly- -Am one of the plaintiffs. Defendant is a partner auJ bought the share in May last. There is but little fall and we have to barrow the stones away. Defendant could not work the barrow. He is agreeable enough, is willing enough to work, but owing to physical infirmity is not able to do work equal to ourselves. Our work is Tetardcd thereby. He is not lazy. I asked him several times to put another man in his place. I consulted my solicitor on the 15th o? August about the matter. Defendant made no offer to me until I got a letter from Mr Hannan, his solicitor, offering to put; Timothy Nolan in his place, or, as an alternative, to get the property sold. When I got the letter on the 3rd October the defendant had left the claim for Greymouth. Our party desire the partnership dissolved and the property sold Defendant fell into the race ; I have picked him up out of the race. Cress-examined— Defendant first became a partner in May last. I first complained of his unfitness for. work within about th-ee days after. I told him to put his brother in his place with us. I told him on the 2lßt September I -would work no longer with him He told me he wou d not put any person on to work in his ; place, saying, " You can go to Bob ■ Russell and put all up for sale." His I 1 brother came on the 3rd October, and oflVred to work. He never men'ioned about a fourth of the water. I wanted him to transfer hia share to his brother. He would not transfer, but he told me he would go with me to Mr Guinness arid sign any agreement to keep his brother on. 1 do not, know whether I could have got the property sold without coming to Court. I did not want the claim sold when I first took proceedings. We wanted a better mau and that is why we- did not accept Mr Hannan's offer. I did not want to bounce the man out of the claim. Patrick Ruan, one of the partners, cor* :

roborated the above evidence in its main features.

Mr Hannan for the defence urged that plaintiffs should have accepted defendants offer of sale witnout the intervention of ihe Court, which would have aaved the coats of a compulsory diaaolution, which would have saved the coats of a compulsory dissolution, which costs, or poition of such costs, the defendant under the circumßtances should not be liable for, but that the defendant should be entitled to his cosis against the plaintiffs. After a very able address in support of his contentions, Mr Hannan called the following evidence : — Patrick Nolan — Am defendant in the suit, and a partner with plaintiffa. Remember the 21st September, when we divided the mone. Killkelly told me it would be better we worked together no more, and that my brother should work my snare. I replied that the property had better be put in Bob Russell's hands, or that I ahould get a fourth of the water. I apoke to my brother, and he offered the party to work in my place. Ruan waa agreeable for my brother to go. The first time I heard the party was dissatisfied with me waa on the 28th September. Kilkelly then asked me if I would send my brother to work. I told him I would not work any more myself, and that I would go with him to Mr Guinness, and sign any agreement for my brother to work the share. T have been willing for all to be sold since the 28th September, but the party would not agree. Cross-examined — Killkelly told me when he refused to take my brother to work that he was going to law with me. I never refused to put another man on. I never said I would or would not. Killkelly went to Greymouth to got law, and when I knew that I went to Mr Hannan to get advice, and the result was the letter Killkelly got. The reason Killkelly gave for not allowing my brother to work was because he might leave at any time, and that I might return to work the share. Timothy Nolan— Corroborated the last witness on the principal pointa. Judgment — There are caaea perhapa, where the contentiona of defendanta counsel would hold good, but in the present suit the defendant has not traversed the plcintiffa allegations, notwithstanding Killkolleys evidence. It is useless to oppose the prayer of the petitioners for disolution and sale of the property. It is, under the circumstances, most desirable that it should be sold, and that the prperty as a whole should be liable fer the coata ; but were there evidence, which there ia not, of coercion on the part of plaintiffs towards defendant, the Court might find itself in a position to uphold Mr Hannan's views. Ordered that the partnership be dissolved, that accounts be taken, that the property be sold by public acution on the ground, and the sale thereof advertisod in the Grey River Argus. lapvkin v. donellan and others. Mr Guinness for plaintiff ; Mr W. H, Jones for defendants. Suit for cancellation of certificate for extended claim of three acres and forfeiture of the property. This case, which at the outset promiaed to engage the court for a full day at least, was amicably arranged by the counsel on esch side. The injunction against defendants was withdrawn, the plaintiff to be compensated for his property, and arbitrators for Euch purpose to be appointed by each side.

The following applications were dealt with :— R. Larkin, for bye-wash at Nelaon Creek. Granted. Mrs O'Brien, for residence area at Tiy Again Terrace. Granted. Chinese parties, for several rights at Ford's Creek, Blackball. Granted. P. Donellan for tail-race at Try Again Terrace. Granted, subject to conditions in respect to Larkins's rights P. Shanahan, for rights at Callaghan's Creek. Granted. Richard Larkins, for branch race at Try Again Terrace. Granted, subject to conditions so as to enable Donellan to work his special claim. Michael Healey, for residence area at Try Again Terrace. Objected to by Donellan and party. Adjourned to 4th November, pending survey of Donellan's lease. P. Lalor, branch race at Dry Gully, Nelson Creek. Granted. Joseph Allen, for occupation license of section near Hatters. Objected to by Livingßtone and others. Adjourned to 4'h November. Colin Algie and others, application to construct race through private property at Nelson Creek. Objected to by Ross. The surveyor reported that applicants could not for any practical purposes construct tho race other than through objector's land. The court decreed that the parties come to terms as to amount of compensation to be determined by agreement within one monih ; then such amount in dispute shall be settled in manner provided in Part 111, Public Works Act, 1882. Hogan and Troy, for licensed holding ab Blackball. Further adjourned for rectification of plan. Nicholas George, protection to claim at Riverview. Granted. A. M'Lellan, tramway at Callaghan's Creek. Granted. A. Nicho', for tunnel and claim and claim at first right-hand branch of Nobles. Granted. P. Donellan, for licensed holding of five acres at Try Again Terrace. Adjourned for survey and report. Isaac Lansing for tunnel at Blackball. Granted. Ah Ham and Ah Fong for tail race, dam, and branch race on aouth aide of Gow's Creek. Aa there appeared a possibility of the races intersecting the county t ack, the application waa adjourned for the conaent of the County Council.