WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume IIII, Issue 1764, 28 August 1874, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

THtJESDA*.

(Before W. Fbaceb, Esq., Warden.) i

THOMAS AND OTHERS V.' GEOBGE SMITH,

This case, the arguments in which occupied the Court for some hours yesterday, was concluded' after we went to press. Judgment was decreed for £2 10s and coSts; the latter amounted to £20 ' /WILLIAM THOMAS T. GEORGE SMITH. "/ This was an' action for the recovery of' damages on account of non-payment of certain mining material. The plaint set ; forth that the defendant being engaged iri mining for gold within a piece of land' fill (lie said district contracted and agreed with the complainant that the com- ' plainant should furnish and supply to the defendant the goods or mining material 1 'mentioned in the . particulars hereto annexed for the use and consumption of £Ec defendant, ia mining operations, . and that thfl complainant should : wind up to the surface all quartz obtained by the defendant, and that h« '• should pay to the complainant the price of iuch winding and mining material; .-and the complainant in pursuance of such agreement did furnish .such mining ma- | terial mentioned in the .particulars, and .did wind or haul up the said quantity of quartz mentioned: yet the defan-1 dant has failed to pay the,complainant , the price of such goods or mining | material and the cost of the said winding ' , or hauling of quartz. - Wherefore the "complainant claims that the defendant be - adjudged to be' indebted to the com? plainant in the amount set out iA such particulars as the price of the said goods or mining material and winding, or in such Other sum as the Court may decree, and that the defendant be ordered to pay to „ - the complainant the amount in which he -.inj be adjudged to be indebted to the , complainant as aforesaid. -; ,In this case, after several witnesses had been examined, His Worship gavo jtidgnwatfor defendant with £5 15s costs. - • iM- *; . .-

Mr. Macdonald said that counsels'. costs alone would be £4 4s, and Jjo whole'! claim in the first instance was only about; £7. Tho costs would have been muchj greater had the judgment gone the other; way a3 the plaintiff had numerous wit-; nesses. ; The Court adjourned. i " :«. ■{•-■■ •%■ i ■ , : L . !