WARDEN'S COURT.—Nov. 25.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume I, Issue 44, 3 December 1869, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.—Nov. 25.

]N r OYEMjBEE 26,

([Before H. W. Robinson, Esq., Warden.)

jj&uffie;; and ,Party ;t..-Harper ancl Party.-—This was a complaint that the defendants: had..without the sanctioned!" •. the"' owners .or ;the authority-of the "Warden, taken possession of a portion of their claim situate at Clark's laggings, and Spraying that they might : be ordered to desist from such, interference, ;and/ be adjudged to pay damages to the amount of £lO. For the deit"was argued that*the plaijutifis? held;-a very much greater arda than that to which they were entitled under the Mining. Eules and J&egulations, and that they (the defendants) were therefore justified in taking possession of the'surplus. It was admitted >by .the plaintiffs that.the ground pegged "'out by them" was in excess of what they could claim,;and they, were willing to forfeit the surplus, if the defendants would measure from their pegs in the di reetidii ; pointed out ; bythem. This defendants had not done, but had taken possession of the ground which they (the plaintiffs) considered "to'be the best part" of their eiaihi". " The Warden ordered defendants to cease interference, intimating that, if the facts were : as stated, they had their legal remedy "by applying to the; Warden's Court. Costs were ordered to be divided. Mr. Hertslet appeared on : behalf ; of the plaintitYs. -« ■'"■■--

t: .Jolm Creighton v. Campbell and Party.—This was an action to obtain a decree of forfeiture of a.superiority of, water;; right in Coal' Pit Gfulljr No. 1 (known as Wet Gully), held oy the defendants -.under; water license, and whici, it was aliened, had become liable to forfeiture from general disuse by the. defendants, and by special disuse between the : 13th March and 17th April last. This- water had been taken possession of by'the plaintiff in February last, under provision of sec. 4 re«\ x. The evidence /was both lengthy and conflicting. It was, however, sought to be established for the defence that the occupation by the plaintiff was not a legal occupation, and that no such right as that claimed could devolve

without a decree "of-"forfeiture- by the Court; and furtheiyj'that the application for forfeiture should - have been made at the time of the alleged disuse, and\ that,judgment■ decreeingra forfeit' tiire of the" superior" right would be. tantamount; to confirming plaintiff in an obtained possession, and Sanctioning'that most obnoxious system which was gradually obtaining on the Goldfi.elds, of jumping. It was further contended that, as the occupa-tion-by; Creightoii:had,been illegal, any expense Incurred by him had been upon his own .responsibility and at his .ownrisk, and thai, therefore, there existed no reason why the discretionary power vested in the Warden under section 115 of the Goldfields Act, 1868, of inflicting upon defendants a small monetary fine in lieu of decreeing a forfei;ture'df their superiority of righty should not be justlyand fairly; :exe raised in the . present case.;: The Wavd-n-held thatthe disuse of. the superior right of ! Campbell and party : between the 13th: t March I .' and"fche''lTtiv' Ipril was fully; I established, and, .declining to exercise. his discretionary power under clause > ; -115 of the Goldiields Act,. 1866, ordered that the re-occupation, of Campbell and party should be held to date from the [ 17th April—thus confirming-the plaini tiff ih the possession of the right which I he/had taken; Mr. Hertslet for the > defence. * The ; 'other: cases were of little iml portance.: :