WARDEN'S COURT, OHINEMURI.

Thames Advertiser, Volume VIII, Issue 2192, 6 November 1875, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT, OHINEMURI.

TnUESBAV. (Before W. Phaser, Esq,, Warden.)

McLiver v. Hart.—This was a plaint laid to obtain possession of a share in the Scramble claim, on the ground of non: working.—No appearance of the' defendant. -Lachlin McLiver deposed: I am a minor, and the holder of miner's right produced. I wish to get possession of Hart's share in the Scramble claim, as it has not been worked either by himself or by any . person for, him for about four months.—James Home, clerk to: the Mining Registrar, was examined.—Ordered that John Hart's share in the Scramble claim be forfeited, and that an order be given to'Lachliii McLiver to take possession. : ' . • 'Watson v. Conn on.—This was a plaint laid to obtain possession of a share in the Young Naval claim. , on the ground of non-working.—No appearance of defenhomas H. Watson deposed : I am a miner, and holder of miner's right produced. I know the Young Naval claim. • Connon's share has, not been worked for over two months, and I wish to ■ get possession. — James Home, clerk to the Mining Registrar, was' 1 examined.—Alex. Hutchinson deposed: ,1 am a miner and a shareholder in. the Young Naval claim. . Connon's share has been unworked for two months; The other shareholders have - been working, but Connon has not been on tho ground since the protection expired.—Ordered that William Allan Connon's share in the Young Naval' claim be forfeited, and that an order be given to -Thomas Henry Watson to take possession. Waddell v. Lavery, Murphy v. Gilpin, McLiver v." Edgehiil, Moir v. Foster, Acton v. Hunter.—These' were plaints laid; to obtain possession of shares in the Scramble claim, on the ground of, non«

working,—There : was. ,110 appearance of aniy of the .parlies, and.; the cases were .atruok out. Porter v. Hannah,—Case withdrawn. . • MoConvillq'y. Bell.—Case withdrawn. Wickham v, Porter, and Others.— Plaint laid to obtain possession of the No. 1 South Amalgamated claim on the ground-of non-working.—Mr Macdonald for the plaintiff,: and Mr Brasaey for the defendants,r-Adjourried by consent to the 2nd December. 5 i'■ '' -'O.A '* Holding v. Farrell, Holding v. Hunter. —Theso were plaints laid to obtain possession of shares in the Scramble claim on the_ ground of non-working.—Both cases withdrawn. ■ - Stewart v. Booth.—This was a plniufc laid to obtdiu possession of a share in the Scramble claim on the "ground of non-working.T-No of the defendant.—Duncan Stewart deposed: I am a miner, and holder of miners'- right produced. I 'wish to get possession of William Booth's share ; in tho Soramblo claim. I know: that it/has been unworked for over 'a month.—Laclilin MoLivor deposed: I know that William Booth's: share, has been unwopked either by himself or by any. person for him for about four months.—Ordered that Wm. Booth's s.haro in; the Scramble claim be forfeited,'and that an order be given to Duncan Stewart to. tako possession. Wreford v. McCabe. — Case with* dram

Wright v. Urquhart and others.—This was a friondly plaint laid, to obtain possession of surplus ground in the Young Colonial claim,—Mr Brassey for plaintiff,—Adjourned by consent to 2nd December. • •

King y. Kelly.—This was a, plaint laid to obtain possession-of a ; share in the Young Colonial claim on the ground of non-working.—Mr. Macdonald for the defendant.-William King 'deposed : 1 I am a miner and holder of. miner's right produced. : Lknow the Young Colonial' claim at Waitekauri. (Witnesses were here ordered out of Court,) 1 . I know'that It obert Kelly is a ; shareholder, and I wish to.get possession of his share/ as'it:never had been worked from the time of pegging out the claim until I laid this plaint on the'l3th, either by himself or by any person for him; The claim was ro«pegged on the.lltb, and registered.the same day, It was not registered on the first pegging. The share had been unworked for 48 hours after the 1 second examined by Mr Macdonald: I do hot know whether; Kelly had -any connection with the claim previous, to the 11th. I was not asked by Orqubart to go to work for wages/and never, heard him ask anybody else to work's, share. I was on the. ground on the 11th and 12th, and also on the 13th up to 1 o'clock. There were a gOodm'any people there. I would have taken a job fo\* a fortnight if I had been asked, as the protection of a claim in which I am interested had not then , ex-pired,--Ronald ' McDonald deposed: I am a miner, residing in the Waitekauri; I: consider' myself a;shareholder in the Young Colonial claim, although •my name does, not appear on the register.—Mr Macdonald here.• admitted, 1 that Kelly's share was - not worked.MrKolly had.been; supporting-parties-while -prospecting.' on' tlie'- uudersfanding- ■ that ho was to get a share.Wh'ontW ( claim was pegged out the," parties on the ground tried to .get sOfae person to. work Mr Kelly's share, and a message was sent to him at.Hikutaia, which he did not .get until tkonext day...'-He/also'tried to 'get somebody to work, ; but without: success,' and. left-ins truotions with one of tho •other;shareholders : to get a man without delay.—Some considerable; discussion ' •ensued, 1 as' the.'Warden said that the goldfields' regulations in forcehere rendered lt : compulsory:that shares.should: be immediately manned. It' appeared from ; theV register; that about half, the shares were registered in the name's ,of absentees, and if. miners i On the ground considered themselves to .be injured they had j, right to come to him for redress, and. ho .must administer.;the law as it stands.! It was shown.-, that a; second . pegging took place before I registration, and ho looked upon that I as the worst form of shepherding.—For I the .. defence, -Mr Macdonald- called : j,Duncan Stewart, who deposed: I know IJrquhart,.and have been mates with him I prospecting.; about " the creeks in the I Waitekauri for about eight months! The. Young Colonial, is the -firat.ground that we ever took up. Mr Kelly, the defendant, was assisting me by keeping me supplied with food during that time. -Cross-examined by plaintiff: , I know that the What Cheer,claim adjoining was pegged but on the strength of what was. got-in the Young Colonial. I cannot say • what was done on the 7th, Bth, and 9th. —Duncan Urquhart deposed.: I am the person' referred to by the last, witness, and have been , mates with him for many months: Kelly and others were assisting us.l assisted to peg out'on a Monday. On Tuesday we tried to get men to go to. work, and Stewart camo . down i to the flat for. the purpose of- looking for men.-'The claim was not pegged'but previous to the 11th.—Cross-examined by plaintiff: I know the What Cheer claim; but'l oannot say whether it was , pegged out on the strength of what was got in the Young Colonial claim.—William King , deposed: lam the plaintiff. I only hold' one miner's right. I have an interest in another claim. I did not intend to peg out the claim originally.—James Home, cjerk to the Mining iiegistrar. deppsed:.The What Cheer claim was registered on the 11th October, as having been pegged out on the Btb, and is described as being bounded on three- sides by supposed ' unoccupied ground, and on the fourth | side by the Waitekauri Amalgamated olaim.—Mr Macdonald and. the plaintiff 1 addressed tho Court.—The Warden said 1 ho was at first under the' impression'that .! the. plaintiff .. was debarred' from 1 taking up the ground, but ho 1 now found that he was not in a ! position to take up ground, as he 1 only held one miner's right, which was j required to hold his interest in another 1 claim. The plaintiff came as a jumper ! and as such he was entitled to a judgment.. The defendant ; had undoubtedly committed a breach of '■ the regulations, and he would order that ; the share be forfeited, but he would take :j advantage of the 66th sectiop of the Act ' and remit the forfeiture, as he.thought '! that persons who supported prospectors ■ were entitled to some consideration, especially in ; this ease, where it had been proved that they had done what they could'to get men to work; in the. ground. The forfeiture would be remitted upon ■ payment of costs, £2, within"4B hours.— Coats were immediately paid. | King v. Black.—Mr JBrassey for the defendant.—This case was ; similar to the last, and was settled the .same way. Costs fixed at £1.

Wreford v. Wright.—Mr Brassey for the defendant.—This was also a similar .case, and was settled in the same way. Costs fixed at £3. Wreford v. Carmichael. —Mr Maodonald for the defendant.—This was a

plaint to obtain possession of .defendant's share in tho Young Colonial claim,, on the ground that the defendant had not a sufficient number /of minors* rights to . cover all the interests in claims for which i he was at the time registered, and that therefore he was not entitled to' hold: tho sharo in the. Young Colonial'claim, of was tho 1 registeredownor.'; As \v there was some .doubt as to whether tho • plaintiff would deriyo any advantage, even if he an order to ,tako' pqs- 0 session; tho, Court' wa"3 adjourned' for luncheon to give tho parlies time to corno. toisomo arrangement, if possible. When the Court resumed, Mr Macdonald said that tho. case had been settled out of Court. Tho Warden's Court was thou adjourncd to the 2nd December. ■