Supreme Court.—In Banco.

Otago Witness, Issue 1754, 4 July 1885, Page 14

Supreme Court. — In Banco.

Wednesday, July 1. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

TUBNBUUL AND OTHERS V. JONES.Special case stated by the Resident Magistrate and Warden at Invercargill. This case had been heard before the Warden at Riverton on December 23, 1884, and at the request of both parties the Warden now stated aspecial case for the opinion of the Supreme Court, under section 129 of " The Mines Act 1877." Mr Jame6 Smith now appeared to argue the case on behalf of the plaintiffs, there being no appearance of defendant or counsel on his behalf. Plaintiffs were owners of a water-race at Orepuki, under "The Mines Act 1877." Subsequent to plaintiffs acquiring such ownership a part of the mining district in which the watovrace lay was proclaimed a village settlement, known as Hirstfield, and such settlement or township •was exempted from occupation for mining purposes. A sale plan of the township was made, showing the plaintiffs' watel Irace and allowing deductions of area from the sections traversed by it. At 'the sale of the township defendant bought a ' sec- / tion traversed by the ' plaintiffs' water-irace. Defendant then diverted it, and built a house which extended over the line of water-race, and got a license for the house. There was no water in the race at the time of building the house. Plaintiff had refused the permission asked by defendant to build. The questions now were, shortly, whether the proclamation mentioned prevailed over plaintiffs' prior right of water-race, or,' if not, whether 1 the Warden had jurisdiction to order the removal of defendant's house. After argument by Mr James Smith, His Honor decided iv favour of plaintiffs— viz., that the proclamation did not prevail over their' prior rights, and that the Warden had jurisdiction to order the removal of defendant's house. Costs £10 10s, to be borne by defendant.