The Arrow Observer AND LAKES DISTRICT CHRONICLE. Arrowtown, Friday, April 5th, 1872.

Lake County Press, Issue 44, 5 April 1872, Page 2

The Arrow Observer AND LAKES DISTRICT CHRONICLE. Arrowtown, Friday, April sth, 1872.

The judgment given in the Warden’s Court on the Gentle Annie Creek water dispute is of such interest to the mining community as to deserve more than a passing notice. In the action referred to—a report of which will be found in last Friday week’s issue of this paper the complainants, who were working in the bed of the creek, sue certain raceholders—the defendants—for diverting all the water of the creek into their race, thereby depiiving them of the means of working their ground, contrary to the clause in the Regulations, which provides that “ two sluiceheads of water shall be allowed to flow down the natural bed of a creek when required for general use.” The complications which this clause gives rise to, and the difficult problems it involves, are endless. The theory that a certain amount of water should be available for those who may wish to work in the bed of a creek seems, on the face of it, only a just and equitable arrangement; but in actual piactice the Rule, as it stands, is inoperative and useless; —worse than useless, because it is in the nature of a trap, into which, every now and then, some unlucky miner tumbles, by rushing into law on what he deems a very dear case. To the raceholder it is a constant source of uneasiness, as he may at any time be summoned to Court to show cause why he should not be adjudged to let flow two heads of water down the creek. And to the Warden himself, between the vague and pointless reading of the Rule on the one hand, and yet very peremptory terms on the other, a power of deciding cases in any way he pleases is given, which throws a heavy responsibility on his shoulders, and places him in the false position of an officer who has to make a law as well as to administer it.

It is not our intenticn, however, at

the present time to discuss this difficult question. We have to draw the attention of our readers to the law-suit under notice, and the judgment of Mr. Warden Beexham thereon. The facts are few and may be briefly stated : The plaintiffs working in the bed of the creek and requiring the water are five men; those using the deviated water in the race, tour in number. It was stated in evidence that the race-owners hfd spent £IOOO on their race. The Warden preferred to base his judgment on the construction to be put on the words “ general use” contained in the clause ; and held “ that to take away the water from the raceholders which they held under the Regulations—and to obtain which they had constructed an expensive race,—and give it to other men who had no race, and were numerically only a very little stronger than themselves, would be an act of injustice to the raceholders. He could not interpret the words ‘ for general use’ to mean simply the requirements of a party or parties of men.” This decision of the Magistrate, therefore, though barren of results on the main point as to whether under any (and, if any, under what) circumstances water may be claimed down the bed of a creek, must be satisfactory to the raceholder, as far as it affirms that the tenure of his water-race rests on no such precarious footing as undoubtedly would be implied had the Court given a contrary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.