WARDEN'S COURT, ARROW

Lake Wakatip Mail, Volume I, Issue 19, 4 July 1863, Page 1 (Supplement)

WARDEN'S COURT, ARROW

June 29, 1863. M'Ewen & party v. Morris & party.—Complainants alleged that their claim had been encroached upon bydefendants, and laid their damages at £SO. John M'Ewen, sworn, said that defendants' party held the next claim above theirs, they had been working up to plaintiffs' boundary; when the work came close to them they went to see whether the defendants were coming into their claim; defendants' claim is 108 by 60 feet, was an amalgamated claim. There were six in the party. Plaintiffs found they were coming in on them, and spoke to them , when they got a very bad answer; there was a visible encroachment, he should say 10ft. by 3ft., sin. Believed they went further in on the bottom. It was on Friday last they were spoken to about it; they went on working and sluiced the dirt out after the notice ; they denied the charge when they were accused.

Christopher Minimin, sworn, said he was one of the plaintiffs, and saw defendants working out the ground last Thursday, but did not speak to them; on examination they found defendants had encroached to the extent of 10ft. by 3ft. Plaintiffs lower peg had been shifted but replaced. Knew it was in the right place by a wall they built on the line of boundary. By the Court—l could not say what day I first saw the encroachment; it was before Friday; I did not speak to them, but told my mates of it. H. Wilkinß, sworn, said he was one of the defendants in this case. They had worked their claim up to the boundary. On Friday the party below them came in and accused them of working part of their ground and that they had shifted their lower peg. On Monday last they were taking out a paddock on the boundary, and one of the complainants looked over the wall at them but said nothing. When complainants spoke on Friday, defendants had worked out that paddock and were washing out another which had been sunk quite inside defendants' claim. Mr. Schau the gold receiver, came and told defendants to desist working until the case was decided. After that they only washed out what dirt was left from the paddock last sunk. They had never touched the pegs. By the Court—We measured and plumbed the ground after complainants had spoken. If we are allowed a wall of 18 inches, we are in our own ground; if not, I think we may have encroached a foot on complainants' claim. Ido not know the distance between our pegs and theirs; Ido not think any wall was left when they were put in.

Cross examined —Three feet is allowed between claims; I did not know we were past the boundary, but we were not past the wall which is I think allowed. We worked this paddock on the boundary because it was the deepest ground. James Maniday, sworn, said he was one of the defendants. They took out the paddock in dispute on Tuesday. On Saturday Mr. Schau told them not to work. On Friday last we washed out.

By the Court—l cannot say the distance between our pegs and those of the plaintiffs ; we bottomed the boundary paddock before the dispute—a day or two perhaps; the size of this paddock was about 10 by 12ft. The edge was within our pegs; all the stuff was sluiced; we sold the gold to an Irishman in the claim above. The paddock produced altogether 3 oz. 4 dwts. Richard Randall said he was one of the defendants, and they took the bottom off the disputed paddock on Monday, and washed out on Tuesday. Complainants came and looked at them twice but never said anything. On Thursday they spoke about it. Defendants had by that time another paddock out and ready for sluicing. By the Court—Complainants on Thursday accused us of encroaching when we were washing out the dirt from the other paddock. Our pegs and theirs are close together. The edge of the paddock in dispute was close to our boundary—a little outside, perhaps a foot. We had no intention of going beyond it.

John Morris, one of the defendants, said they took out the disputed paddock on Monday and washed out on Tuesday. The last paddock was some feet inside the boundary. By the Court—We received the price of 3 oz. for the gold out of the disputed paddock. I do not think we are over our boundary.

Richard Randall, re-examined by the Cour —I told one of the plain tiffs we had washed half an ounce to the dish out of the paddock; I was chaffing him; we were drinking at the Golden Age We sold the gold to an Irishman working above us. Ido not know the day.

J ames Colquhoun said on Tuesday last he bought the stuff as it was in defendants' sluice box for 3 ounces. It returned 3 ozs. 4 dwts. Bought it on the chance. Knew their claim—they were sluicing close to the claim below. The stuff came from a paddock sunk close to plaintiffs' boundary. Noticed no other wash dirt about.

His Worship said that there had been an encroachment was clear from the evidence of the defendants themselves. Plaintiffs should have protested when they first observed it, and not waited until the paddock was filled up again. He considered two feet as the outside limit of the encroachment, and seeing that it had been satisfactorily proved that three ounces only were obtained from the paddock of 10ft. by 12ft, he should adjudge to the plaintiffs 10 dwts., having calculated that to be the amount taken from their ground. At the same time, as he was of opinion that defendants worked beyond their boundary, knowing well that no wall had been allowed in measuring off the ground, he should fine them £5 for infringement of the Goldfields Regulations.