WARDEN'S COURT ARROWIOWN.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 664, 2 August 1871, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT ARROWIOWN.

July 26th, 1871. (Before £. Beetham, Esq., Wa-den.) Armagnac v. Ah Sin and party. —Tie plaintiff sought to recover £4O damages tor m obstruction to his tail-race caused by the lefendants' on the 29th May, last. The coniplinant conducted the case in person, and Mr Barton appeared for the defendants. The hearing of the evidence in tlis case occupied some time, six witnesses being.'alled. lhe complainant produced a rough s.etch of the ground, representing a long line ofdam protecting his tail-race. The defendants on the other hand produced a carefully drawnplan by Mr Holson, the surveyor, which differed materially from the other as regards the dan —the extent of dam shown in it being very small. A good deal of the evidence was addres&sd to this point. The complainant swore that thee was a dam in existence as represented on hissketch, and two of his witnesses also swore to the same effect. A third witness, however, stafcd that the dam had been nearly all washed amy by a flood, on the 29th May, and that there emained little or nothing beyond a heap of tailhgs. The defendants also endeavored to slow that the eomplainant'had not been workhg in his claim for some time past, but had beerengaged in tunnelling elsewhere, and that he lad also been trying toJselThis claim. Mr Barton contended that there was nothing to shew that the defendants .vere responsible for any damage sustained by tic complainant '1 he obstruction in his tail-race was owing siaiplv,to the action of the river, whl-h in time of frost washed down a quantity «f tailings f-om the different claims on its bmks. Tailiigs, too, were often washed down tie various gillies on both sides of the river, anl helped to obstruct the tail-race. The complainant had erdeavored to mislead the C'Ourt by producing a which represented a dam, where, in point offact there was no dam at all. On these grounds le thought that judgment should go for the defeniants. The Warden thought that the dan had very little to do with the matter. He thoight it was clear from the evidence, that the defendants had been pitching mullock into the rirer, and obstructing it by that means. He siould therefore give the complainait £2O damages, less £5 for not having kept his Jam in ordc\ Beale and others v. Cavanagh—Claim for £2O damages, for unlawful interference with Unregistered water rigks of the •omplainants. Mr Turton for the complainant;, aid Mr Barton for the defendant. When the case was called on, Xr Barton objected that the sumnxns did not ;tate the cause of action with sufficient distinctness, as required by the Rules of the Garden's Court. It was impossible for the de'endant to iaiow what was meant by "unlawful interference between the 30th June and the Bth July. The summons should show what coistituted the interfeecnce complained of. The Warden thought the ob ection a substantial one, but he wouk not dismiss the summons. He would grant an sojournment till next Court day. On the appliciti >n of counsel for the defence, costs were grtnted. A large number of mining applications were deposed of. The Warden said that for the future he would take unopposed applications before the sitting o' the court, so that miners might not be detaned from their wo-k. (Mr Beetham seemed to be very unwell, and was apparently suffering from the effects of his late illness.) __________________