WARDEN'S COURT.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 19, 4 July 1863, Page 4

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before Richmond Beetham, Esq.) Wednesday, July 1. Sherwin v. party in dispute.—No appearance. Dundas v. Fisher.—Charge of jumping, at Broad Beach, Shotover. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The plaintiff stated that the ground in dispute had been marked out by his mates, but could not say exactly at what time. It was a terraceclaim, wet ground, at first 60 feet by 70. They afterwards took in another mate, and shifted the back pegs ro the full extent of ground allowed, which was 40 by 40 feet a man. They shifted the pegs on the 23rd May, but plaintiff did not exactly know the present size of the claim; The jumping occurred about the first of June. A flood took place on the 24th May, that swept away the bridge at Arthur's Point, and filled up the race that was being cut towards their claim by a company of miners, of whom plaintiff was one. There was a meeting to consider whether the company should clear out their race, or another, called the Cornishmen's. Plaintiff advocated the cutting of a race at the back of the claims. The others were against that course, and " spotted" him. On the Monday he held undisputed possession of his share in the claim, and on Tuesday Fisher had jumped it. Plaintiff told him that he had been ill, and could not come before. Offered Fisher the price of his half-day's work, which he refused. Plaintiff then came to the Warden, and got an order till it should be decided. Mr. Wood was then on his way to Dunedin. By Defendant.—The ground was pegged out on the 15th May. Defendant. —Did you work in the claim or in the race after that date ? Plaintiff. —No, I was not able. I have a doctor's certificate to that effect [certificate handed inl. I was acknowledged as mate in the claim on the Monday. Defendant. —At this time did you take a contract to put up a gold office at Arthur's Point ? Plaintiff. —Yes, but 1 have only done one day's work about the 20th June. I have done a little these last few days. Charles Haines, sworn, said he was a miner at Broad Beach, and not a mate of the plaintiff. Dundas was in possession of the claim till three o'clock on the day preceding the jumping. Witness accompanied him into Queenstown to see about some letters, and the next day Fisher held possession of Dundas's claim. Witness was present when he was recognised as mate on the Monday.

Defendant.—Did Dundas work on the Monday in his claim ? Witness.—As much as any other man. There was a dispute among the company about clearing out the Cornishmen's race, which was not finished till about three o'clock. He was there representing his claim, and he was recognised as doing so. The others did not work before 3 o'clock. The defendant, sworn, said he took up the claim as abandoned ground on the first of June. Dundas never worked at all either in the claim or race. His mates told him some one would take it up if he did not work. They were working in the race when the defendant took up the ground. Plaintiff.—Did no one tell you I was ill when you took it up ? Defendant.—Not one. Plaintiff.—Did I not say I was ill when I saw you? Defendant—Not till after I had taken up the ground. William Cameron, a miner working at Broad Beach, sworn, said he had once been a mate of the complainant Defendant —Did Dundas ever do any work ? Witness.—No. We were working for three weeks, but he would not come up, because he was putting up a place at Arthur's Point. I told him if he was sick, to come to the tent. As he did not come and represent his share, this man took it up. Plaintiff.—Did you ever see me working at Arthur's Point.

Witness.—No, but there were several who did. I told the men you said you were ill, and they all began to laugh, for they had seen you at work. Plaintiff.—Did you lay this man on to jump my claim ? Witness.—No; I told him it was abandoned ground. William Gordon, sworn, said he was a miner, and mate of plaintiff. Defendant—Did Dundas ever do any work in the claim or race ? Witness.—No, never.

Defendant—Did you know he had a contract at Arthur's Point to put up a place ? Witness.—Yes. lie wanted me to go in with him, but I refused. He took it up after he had pegged out the ground. Defendant—Did he ever have a man to represent him in his claim ? Witness.—No.

His Worship said that if the plaintiff had been ill, he might have got his claim protected in his absence. It was very clear, from the evidence given by his own mates, that plaintiff had not worked in the claim, and he should therefore give a verdict for the defendant. Thomas Green v. party in dispute.—Charge of cutting a race through a store, and washing away the foundation. No appearance of defendants. There being some doubts as to whether the warrants had been properly served, the case was adjourned till Thursday, at Arthur's Point, on the ground.