WATER RIGHTS.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1995, 27 May 1875, Page 2

WATER RIGHTS.

The hearing of the objections to the applications of Francis Dakin and W. C. .Wright, for a licenses to construct a water-race at Tairua, was appointed to take place on the 15th June. J. B. Beeche applied also for a license to construct a water-race, and there being no objections lodged, and the requirements,of the Act fulfilled, Mr Tyler, on behalf of the applicant, asked that the license be granted. : ; : ' Mr Tyler read extracts from the Act, pointing out, in his opinion, that the Warden had power at; once to comply with the request. .„ The Warden said he would not refuse the application, but until he had a report he would say nothing 1 further on the matter.

Mr' Tyler persisted that, as.no" objection from either the Mining Inspector or any other person had been lodged, the application should be granted. , Mr Macdonald,,in reply to a question from the Warden, said he appeared for certain persons who had applied for a license to construct a race nearly in the same locality as that applied for by Mr Beeche.

Mr Tyler objected to Mr Maed6nald being heard, which objection was upheld by the Warden. ' - Mr. Beeche was called by Mr Tyler and stated he was the applicant^for the, water right, mentioned. The,' appii-; cation was made On the 13th April. Had paid the sum of £5, arid had also posted copies of the form of the application on the ground. \ Mr Macdonald again objected to the evidence, but the Warden ruled that he was out of order. : • -

The Warden said that there was one objection which might: be well sustained, and that was that the water might be required for public purposes. ;; = ; V Mr Tyler admitted that auch an objection would be fetal, but such an objection should have been made before the present time by the officer appointed j: and when such had not been done, his client should not be made to suffer for the neglect. The water was required for battery purposes, and the machinery was now on its way to the ground; and if- the waterright was withheld serious injury would be sustained by his client;' * The Warden said the application would not be granted until areporfc was received, but the case would not beprejueliced by the delay., On the 15th June a reply to the application would be given. The application -of John Cook for a water race at Puriri was also to be inquired into on the same date. , , WM. SANDEBSON T. JOHN NIX AND ■,' , ■ :■■•".: .' '■ :f : ,"•..:. "-.-\ \. ■ The plaint in this case was as follows: —That the complainant and defendantsJohn Nix, Henry Hodge, and James Munro, all of the Hauraki Goldmining District —previously to the month of February last were and are still engaged in a partnership relating to goldmining, to wit, in the working of a tribute in the mine of the Una Quartz Crushing and Goldmining Company, [Registered Upon terms of mutual profit and loss ;, that on or about the third day of February last an account of the assets of the said; partnership was had: and taken by the said defendants, and there was then by the defendants out Of such assets appropriated and set apart a certain sum of money set apart to be divided among the partners as certain profits ensuing from the said partnership transaction; that the defendants withheld from the complainant his share of the. said sum of money;: Whercforo the complainant claims-that; the Court declare the amount of the share of such sum of money payable to tho ; complainant, and that the defendants be ordered to pay to the complainant the amounts ascertained to be duß, and that the complainant may have such after relief in the premises as the Court may decree. . . - • Mr Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Tyler for the defendants. I On the application of Mr. -Tyler the Court was adjourned'till half-past two. On resuming— Mr Macdonald said it appeared to him to be; more a - matter rof • feeling among v the parties than a question of money. The defendant' admitted in part the justice of the claim, but there was a difference among, them as to which should pay the amount.due. John Nix was examined" as to the agreement between the parties with respect to the manner of working the claim. The agreement was in writing, and was lost. The document wasn't stamped. Thomas Munro was next examined. He wrote out the document, which was an agreement between them as mates.

The witness was proceeding to give evidence as to its contents, when— Mr Tyler objected, as there was evidence that the document was not stamped. Mr Macdonali said they were not sure that the document was such a one as required stamping. Some argument ensuecFas to whether there was proof of the document being an agreement, during which our reporter left.?

[Left Silting.]