WARDEN'S COURT.— June 1.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 18, 4 June 1869, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.— June 1.

(Before H. W. -Robinson, Esq. } W arclen.)

.Duffy v. Wickham.—-This was a mining partnership dispute, and had been brought on for hearing at Hyde on the 7th April and adjourned to the 9th May, and again adjourned to the Ist June, in consequence of the absence of the defendant. On the present occasion there was again no appearance of the defendant, and Mr. H. 0. Hertslet, at the request of the Court, consented to watch the case for the defence. I.Q.e case occupied some seven or ei°*ht aours, and, as it would be impossible, within any reasonable space, to give anything like a satisfactory or intelligible precis of the case, we ' shall confine ourselves with giving the issues as but-by the Bench to the .jury, the replies of the jury in each issue, and the judgment of the Court thereafter Ist. Was there a partnership between Wickham and Duffy as alleged? Yes. ■ ° 2nd. Is defendant indebted to plaintiff? If so, to what amount ? £llO, 3rd. "Was defendant partner with complainant in a certain mining lease for five acres, at Hyde ? Yes. 4th. Should such partnership, if found to exist, be dissolved ? : Yes.: sth. On what terms ? Defendant to have no "further interest in/the Enterpise "Water Bace, and the mining lease of the five acres to be sold, subject to the approval of his Honor the Superintendent, and the proceeds to be divided between plaintiff and defendant; the sum of £llO due to plaintiff to be the first charge against defendant's portion or share A

' Upon the receipt" of the replies of the jury -to the -issues which bad been submitted to them, big Worship delivered tne-toilowing judgment' " That die defendant pay to plaintiff the sum of one .hundred and ten pounds sterling. That the defendant shall have no further claim upon the share in the Enterprise Water Eace sold to him by the plaintiff m May, IS67—the purchase never having been completed. < " That the right, title, and interest (if any) of the defendant Joseph Wickham in and to five acres of auriferous ground at Hyde, held under a mining lease granted in the name of the said Joseph Wickham, be, subject to the approval of bis Honor £he Superintendent, sold by public auction to the highest bidder, and the. proceeds be equally divided between the said Joseph Wickham and the plaintiff Michael ' Sylvester Duffy : Provided that the .share or portion of such proceeds belonging to the said Joseph Wickham, shall, in the first instance, be applied to the payment of the suin of aollO as aforesaid, and of the costs of this action (£8 17s), and expenses of plaintiff (£6 18s), and the surplus only, if anyj paid to the said defendant, Joseph Wickham."

JTJJTE, 3. M'Oullough and Party v. Grays oil and Party.—Claim of £24, progress payments oil account of constructing water race. Mr. Ross, for the defence, pleaded not indebted. It was contended by tlie plaintiffs that the work performed was according to contract, and -tnat the amount claimed was due on account of progress payments, in terms of agreement; For the defence it was contended that the work had not been constructed according to contract, that it was unfit to carry water, and . that it had not been completed within the time specified in the agreement. Judgment for defendant.

Grayson and Party v. M'Cullough and Party.—This was a suit to recover the sum of £IOO for non-fulfilment of contract, by which the p.alintiffa suffered loss to the amount of £IOO claimed. Mr. Ross for plaintiffs. The defendant applied for an adjournment till Thursday next, on the ground that they had not had sufficient time since the service of the summons to produce the witnesses necessary-' for the defence. Adjournment granted.