WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume III, Issue 148, 8 December 1870, Page 6

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before W. L. Simpson, Esq., Warden.) Thursday, December 1.

Ah Chew v. Ah Chow. — Claim, £50, damages for encroachment. Mr. Gooday for plaintiff, and Mr. M'Coy for defendant.

The circumstances of the case are these : — Some months ago, on the application of Ah Ung and others, an agricultural lease, held by John Fitzgerald, was cancelled, compensation having been made to him. In the lease there were 10a. 3r. 27p., he only got compensation for 10 acres, and the remainder he considered as his property, as he had not been paid for it. Subsequently, Mr. Fitzgerald sold or disposed of, to Ah Chow and party for mining purposes, three acres in a leasehold belonging to him, and abutting to that for which he got compensation. It appears that the pegs of the last purchasers (fixed by Fitzgerald himself) were within the boundary of the land, for which compensation had been paid, somewhere about five and a-half feet the whole breadth of the land disposed of.

Mr. Gooday contended that the whole lease was cancelled, and that Fitzgerald had no right to any portion of it. Although he only got compensation for 10 acres, still the whole was cancelled. The words of the lease were more or less.

The surveyor's evidence went to prove that there was an encroachment, but not to any great extent.

The evidence of the plaintiff went to show that the ground was rich, they having got upwards of llozs. in three and a-half days.

For the defence, Mr. M'Coy contended that the difference of 3r. 27p. was too great a discrepancy to come within the meaning of the words "more or less," as the limit of error allowed in all surveys was only 1 link in 1000, and as Mr. Fitzgerald has got payment only for 10 aeies, clearly the balance belonged to him.

The evidence went further to show that only 100 buckets were taken away ; that the ground was not so rich as represented, as in some dishes full they could scarcely get the colour.

The Warden, on considering the whole evidence, adjudged that the whole area mentioned in the lease was cancelled ; that the amount of damages was excessive. He found for plaintiff for £7 10s and costs, amounting urall to upwards of £12.