HYDE.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 34, 24 September 1869, Page 3

HYDE.

Waudisf's' CouiiT. —'"-ept. 15. (Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden, unci Assessors.) Weiss and Others v. Dillon and Others. Complaint that defendants had unlawfully diverted from complainants' tail race water which complain ants' had been using since the mouth of June, and that they had run taillings out the area applied for by complainants as a lease. Damages claimed, £5. The plaintiffs said they would abandon the claim for damages ; all they wanted was to try the right to the tail water. A large amount of evidence was taken. It appeared that the plairitilfe, being applicants for a mining lease in Main bully, Aly de, ; c-vjm-luenced to cut a tail race which would serve to work their ground, and also answer the purpose of a storm channel to pass the water and tailings from above down the gully. For''the cutting of this tail race they had been making use of the tail water. The defendants having a claim above Weiss', and a right for a tail race through Weiss' claim, had intercepted a portion of the tail water, and, after using it for their own purposes, had passed it down their own tail race, through Weiss' claim, discharging it too low down to be of any use for Weiss' workings. It was alleged, for plaintiff, that the effect of this had been to cause the tailings from above to accumulate on their claim, and to choke their tail race. The trial lasted all day, and it was past midnight when the assessors found a verdict" for the defendants. Greo. Gilchrist v. M. S. Duffy—For cancellation of certificate for a tail race. was shown that the race had been [□. occupied for more than a month, but

the Co;i"t .decided- to impose :k 'penally in lieu of forfeiture. Joined lOs., m lieu of forfeiture, with easts lls. } and 20s. expenses of plaintiff*. Thos. Duffy v. Gr. Gilchrist. —Withdrawn. Complaint to be amended. M. S. Duff j v. Matheson and Others. —ln his case, which had been heard and decided at Naseby in favor of the defendants the plaintiff now moved for a new trial. The application was refused. ~ September 17. Thos. Puffy v. G. Gilchrist.—lfor cancellation of ,y;rant of extended claim on grounds of mi srepressntation. After hearing evidence on both sides the Court dismissed the case. Weiss v. Dillon.—Motion was made by the plaintiff for new trial in this case, which was heard and decided on the 15th. Tiie Court did not consider the arguments of sufficient force to sustain the mo Lion. The application was therefore refused. I? estnr.x r M vo-isTrv,vTic ? s Court. (Before 11. W. ilobinson, Esq., R.M.)

Weiss v. No one.—Assault. Complainant slated that defendant had violently seized him by the throat and throttled Trim. Defendant admitted that he had just put his hand on the complainant. Evidence was taken,and the- Court fined the defendant 40s. and costs. Palmer v. Laverty.—Balance of account £8 14s.'7d. The claim in this instance was for £27, for wages as a carpenter at 20s. per day. Credit was given for a contra account. Defendant clispiited the rate of wages, and called another tradesman, who had been employed on the same job, and who had not asked or received more than 14s. per day. There having been no bargain, and' this being the only other person in the same trade, the Magistrate allowed the wages at 14s. per day only. Judgment for defendant for 12s. 4d. and costs. ~