WARDEN'S COURT.

Mataura Ensign, Issue 1256, 7 November 1903, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

GORE. Thursday, Novembkii 5. (Before Mr G. Cruickshank, Warden.) The MacCharlton Co. (Mr Howler) applied for an order to enter u t )on private prop 'rsy, being section 41)5, Hokonui district, belonging to E. S. Gill, for the purpose of marking out a special dredging claim.—Order granted in accordance with agreement between the company and Mr McGill. H. G. Horn's application for a special claim of G7 acres, being part of section 89, block I, We'ndon, which had been adjourned from Waikaia for legal argument was considered. The ground bid originally been taken up by Bobert Boag, but was declared forfeited on a suit instituted by Bobert Hay, who was declared flrst applicant for it. Hay's application was objected to by 11. G. llorn. The application was refused on the ground of collusion between Boag and himself. Against this decision of the Warden, Hay appealed and the appeal comes on for hearing before Judge Ward at Gore on the 18; h inst.

Meantime Horn pegged off and applied for the ground, but abandoned this application and put in a fresh application after re-peg-ging, ai.d this application was now objected to by Robert Boag on the ground that the land was not open for application, and by Thos. Hickeyon tbe ground that no provision had been made to pay him compensation. Hickey's objection had been adjourned. Mr Neave, for Mr Horn, now asked that his application be adjourned until after the decision of tbe District Court on tho appeal. Mr Inder, for the objectors, opposed the adjournment, and proposed to show that tbe Court had no power to entertain tbe application, and that it must be struck out. He briefly narrated tbe circumstances of the case, and said that Hay's application had been recommonded by the Warden, and the Minister's consent obtained, and then Horn objected on the ground of collusion. The Warden then refused Hny's applicitiop, and the judgment endorsed on the document was "application refused." This decision was given on the Oth October, about twelve o'clock noon, and tho present application by Horn was tiled at 3.40 p.m. on the satne day. The land applied for by Hay was the same as now applied for by Horn. Notice of appeal to the District Court bad been lodged, and pending ihe heating of (he appeal the land was not open for mining when tbe application was inado. He referred at length to tbe case of Claypole and McFadyen, 1 Gazstte Law Reports. If tho adjournment were granted it was giving Horn a monopoly. If tbe appeal was successful then Hay had the first right ; if it were unsuccessful, then, and not till then, did tbe land become Crown land open for application. For these reasons tho adjournment should be refused.

Mr Neave replied, supporting the adjournment. Supposing the appeal were successful the Warden might still refuse Hay's application on other grounds. He admitted that Hay was still the first applicant, and that Horn's application was subject to Hay's right. He replied to the case of Claypole find KcPadyen, and contended he was entitled to the adjournment to keep Horn's position good, as if the adjournment were refused -Horn would lose any benefit of priority he was nowentitlid to. After further discussion, the Warden decided to send his deeison by telegraph from either Balclutha or Kaitangata next Wednesday or Thursday, and meantime he would look further into the matter. The objectors' costs were noted at £1 3s each. The Court then rose.