WARDEN'S COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VI, Issue 1815, 27 October 1874, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before W. Fbaseb, Esq., Warden.) W. WBOE V. W. J. NEYTBT. This was a claim for forfeiture of three full shares in the Trafalgar claim situated on the Karaka, defendant having failed to bona fide and continuously work the said shares from day to day in accordance with the regulations made under the GoldMining Districts Act, 1873. Neither party appeared, and the case Was adjourned till Thursday. THE DKAIKAQE CASES. The remainder of the drainage cases were brought on this morning. The Bright Smile G.M.Co. and others v. the City of London was the first on the list. Mr. Macdonald appeared for plaintiffs; Mr. Tyler for defendants, and said he had authority under the seal of the company to consent to a contribution of £32 Os 8d per month for"six months, commencing from to-day, 27th of October. An order was made accordingly without coats. In the case of the Bright Smile and others v. Crown Prince Company, Mr. Tyler appeared for defendants, and asked for an adjournment until Thursday next, the 30th. He stated that the case woxild be disposed of in the same way as the previous one. In the case of -the Bird in Hand, Mr. Tyler stated he had, alike authority to lhat in the City of London, the amount of contribution to be £30 per month for six months. Order made. Eegarding the Exchange G.M.Co., Mr. Tyler appeared on behalf of defendants to agree to a monthly contribution of £20, payment to commence from date. Order made. Mr. Brassey appeared on behalf of the Queen of the May to consent to an order for £20 per month, commencing from date. Order made. « In the case of the Queen of Thames G.M.Co., Mr. Tyler stated that authority had been given him to consent to an order for £16 per month. Order made. APPLICATION FOE WATEE EACE. This was an application made on behalf of the Imperial Crown Company by Mr. Sims, for permission to construct a water race from the Boundary Creek to the Imperial Crown battery, and to use the water for battery purposes. Mr. Tyler appeared on behalf of the objectors—Mr. Robert Graham and the Thames Borough Council. The objection' of Mr. Graham was that the proposed water race would pass in and through ground of which he was the owner. The objections of the Borough Council were— Ist, that the water proposed to be diverted is required for domestic purposes by the people ; 2nd that the point of diversion from Boundary Creek, aboutßo yards from Tararuroad, is situated on a high cliff, and it is impossible for residents requiring the water to take it from its point of diversion ; 3rd, that the inhabitants are are compelled to take their water from this creek in the summer time ; 4th, that Tararu road is a public road, and under the control of the Council, and that the granting o* 1 the license applied for would seemingly give exclusive authority to the applicants to enter upon the land de«cribed in the license, which the objectors consider inconsistent with the powers of the Council, and likely to interfere with its action in 'the proper management of the road; and sth, that the road, being under the control of the Council, the Council object to its being cut up or otherwise interfered with, unless with their sanction. Mr. Tyler addressed the Court on the different points in the objections, but chiefly on that of the water being required for domestic purposes. His Worship said the Borough Council had started with a wrong assumption as regarded the point of diversion —the people would be enabled to take water from the place at which they had obtained it before. It would not interfere with the residents one iota. The plan was produced, and the direction of the proposed race pointed out. Mr. Tvler said he had witnesses to prove that this was the only available supply in certain seasons, and had been sold at as muc'u a3 Id per bucket. And supposing the Court granted the license, the consequence would be that anyone taking water from the creek so as to divert the supply from the licensee would be liable to an action for trespass, Mr. Tyler said the Borough Council were doing their duty in i looking after the interest of the public in j this matter. Hia Worship said it seemed to him i that the Council were putting obstructions in the way of that which was the ■ole support and stay of the goldfield. Mr. Tyler said he was sure the Borough Council had the interest of gold mining at heart —it was their own interest. A good deal of discussion ensued, when His Worship said if Mr. Dean (who was in Court) would gwear that the Council purposed diverting the water for domestic use, he Worship) would refuse the application. ' :

Mr. Dean said he could only say that lie believed it had been determined upon/ Mr. Sims said Mr. Dean had told him it was not the intention of the Council to use the creek, as they could get a better supply. Mr. Dean denied this, Mr. Sims said the company had offered to erect a slandpipe, and also a tank, with pipe, so that the residents would actually bo in a better position that they were. Mr. Sims also stated that the Council could, by the expenditure of £150, catch enough storm water from the creeks to supply all the demand. ti is Worship asked for the evidence in Mr. Graham's objection. ; 11. J. Macfarland, Borough Engineer, deposed that the water-race would go through a corner of Mr. Graham's property on this (the eastern) sida of Boundary Creek. His Worship said : I am very much grieved and distressed, Mr. Sims, that I am obliged to refuse your application, for of ail people, perhaps the Imperial Crown Company are most worthy of consideration, as having done more, their hands in their pockets, tbjiSbe this field to what it should be. The application was refused without costs. • •