WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1703, 18 June 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY.

(Before W. Fbaser, Esq., Warden.)

J. D. WICKHA3X V. JAMES GABVEY AND „:■ MATHEW KINSELLA. -

The plaint act forth that the defendants are the registered owners of a certain claim situate in the ICaraka, known as the Prince of Wales claim, and the defendants have failed:, to-bdria -fide and continuously 1 'work the said claim from "day to day By the numbers of then prescribed by and in respect of such claim, wherefore the complainant claims that defendants may be adjudged to have forfeited the said claim by reason of such non-working as aforesaid, and that the complainant has made application that he be given an order in writing authorising him to take possession of the ground. Mr. Tyler for ■ the complainant; 3 Mr. Macdonald for the defendants. .

J. D.Wickham r -sworn—l am the holder, of a miner's right and, complainant in this case. 'IkhoVthd Prince of Wales claim. There has been no work done, on it.lor 18 months. I have searched in tUe Woden's Ofllce. and could not- find a£y order either, protection; or; amalgamation. '-„.;.-*-' ;,"/,-;, i;;". : : v: -. '[<i : :-.--\

'.'■'. Cross examined.-—Xhe claim joins the Exchange ground on one side. If I win the case, I intend to work the ground. I am interested in a large claim adjoining that ground: it has sot yet been christened or registered. I took it up a short time before this action was] commenced. It joins the Exchange on the southland Prince of Wales. on the north, (plan produced). The ground Isak for is included in it; "the surveyor pegged it out. ;F. Gißirgess produced the 'register of the Prince of Wales claim. J

Joshua PuQch, sworn,. deposed—l ; am a miner. I was concerned in the late action, but had no: miner's right. After I had lodged the complaint, I spoke to Garyey about the ground, and he told me I hsd no occasion to take legal step 3, a?. I could have the ground if I would give him and his mate a share. I told him I could not do it. Garvey said nothing to me about preparations he had made to wort the ground. — His' Worship: observed that shepherding was rampant on the Thames—there were too many instances of it. The ground was: clearly forfeited. ... Mr Tyler applied for costs —Granted, £4:l7s i 6d.r. ■.- ■: V • XO -7 '"!

Mr Macdcnild then applied on the part of the defendants for a monetary penalty in lieu of forfeiture.

Mr Tyler contended that the claim had been entirely unworked for.six months. :The pre?ent lactibn- was not fai the benefit of the defendants but for that'of the Exchange Company. ;iHe submitted that in tl is case the Court had no option but forfeiture.. .The infliction of a fine would not prerent ground being unworked, the amount c ; infli"c|ed;lgoingl3to. ;the fCroiwn. This ;tK^:79£ron^geit u'c'aseliliafc had for some time been broug't before the Court, and that in the case of the infliction of a fine a neighbouring- c'aim would pay it. Ho cont nded that the Court had no power to fix an alternative of a fine instead of forfeiture. ' ' '

His Worship said whether he had the power or not he intended to gfte defendants the alternative of paying a fine of £20 in this case instead of forfeiture —the. money to be paid at oncer>within : an hour, or, he would

mate an order for J. D. Wickham to go and take possession of the ground. He (His Worship) wished it to be distinctly understood—and he hoped the press would make it public that in future he would not grant an alternative, but order possession to be given at once. There was too much of this holding ground without working. In future they need not plead ignorance, for it would not avail. Whenever it should be proved that men had held ground without working for a longer time than the Actattdlr*!, they would forfeit their right. The Court adjourned. -"■■'"<