Lawrence District Court.
Wednesday, Jujly 28, (Before his Honor Judge Ward.) SAM HEE (APPELLANT) V. YOU SX7M (RESPONDENT)* This was an appeal from the decision of Mr Warden Revell. The warden had on the complaint of the respondent declared the water right of the appellant forfeited owing to longcoutiuued abandonment. The notice of appeal denied the abandonment, and claimed that if there was an unintentional abandonment a fine should have been inflicted m lieu of forfeiture. Counsel foe the appellant (Mr Copland) admitted that there was no new evidence, to bring forward, and practically admitted that the whole matter for his Honor to decide was whether a fine should not have been inflicted m lieu of forfeiture. — His Honor said that so far as he could see there was no appeal m such a case. — Mr Copland admitted that there was no matter of law or fact hi dispute, and no new matter to bring forward ; this was not therefore a case m which "The Mines Act 1877" allowed an appeal. — Appeal dismissed with costs. —Mr M'Coy and Mr Finlayson appeared for the respondent.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/OW18860730.2.44
Bibliographic details
Otago Witness, Issue 1810, 30 July 1886, Page 17
Word Count
184Lawrence District Court. Otago Witness, Issue 1810, 30 July 1886, Page 17
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.