WARDEN'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 342, 27 October 1866, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before C. C. Schaw, Esq., Warden.)

Friday, October 26.

Taggart v. Reeves. — This case, which •Was adjourned at the last sittings of the Court, was one of disputed title to Section 226, in Sewell street. It was postponed tin the application of complainant, for the production of an important witness, who, however, failed to make his appearance, having left that morning in the p.s. Bruce, and was fined the sum of L 5 by the Court for disobeying the sumiuons, which it was sworn he had be<in served with. The Warden then read the following ietter, which he had received from Mr Harper: — " Sir— Having to leave for the Buller in the Bruce, I can only state what I know in the case of Taggart v. Reeves. I heard Mr Reeves say to Mr Taggart that ' he would allow him half of the allotment in dispute, after a considerable amount of discussion on the subject." The defendant asked for permission to make a statement. He said that at the last heaiing of the case complainant admitted to not having paid any thing towards the ground in question, which was privately bought by him (defendant) from Mr Kenrick, and paid for, not out of the account of the then firm (Taggart and Reeves), but out of his (defendant's) private funds. The ground not being occupied was jumped some months afterwards by a party named Reeves* Complainant — Your own brother. Defendant admitted the fact and continued his statement, remarking that if complainant then claimed a share in the ground it was strange he did not come forward on that occasion to oppose the jumper. The ground was held for s)me time by his (defendant's) brother who registered it according to the act, and, some months afterwards, per arrangement, transferred it back to the defendant. In January last he commenced building the Free Store, complainant not making any objection, neither did he offer to pay any money towards its erf ction, a 9 partner in the speculation. When the store was finished defendant sold it, as he was pressed for 'money, which procedure was not opposed by complainant. From the above defendant considered that his claim admitted of no dispute. Complainant called the attention of the Court to a letter which was written by.defendant on the 27th July, 1865, to Messrs N. Edwards and Co. It contained an «ffer in the name of the firm, Taggat and Reeves, to sell both sections, the one on which stood the bonded store for LBSO ; the'Dther, which was .not then built upon, for Ll5O. This-was contended by defendant to be a tacit admission of his right to an equal share in the latter. The Warden, in.giving judgment, &aid that it was clear to him that defendant had bought the ground and built a store upon upon it at his own private cost, to which complainant then raised no objection by disputing the case in open Court. It was his (the Warden's) duty to decide the case by giving the ground to one party or the other, and not to decide upon a question of partnership which was to be heard before the Supreme Court only. He, however, consideied that defendant had resorted to a little sharp practice, and completely out-manoeuvred complainant. At the same time he must give a verdict for him, an appeal being allowed. Defendant said that after r such remarks from the Warden, which woulddoubtless be reported, he felt compelled in justification to call the Court's attention to an offer he had made the complainant a week ago, to have the case decided by commercial men, each of the disputants to choose their own assessors. -The case ended by complainant giving notice of appeal. Clarke v. Devery. — Illegal occupation of a portion of a section in Tancred street. Verdict for plaintiff. The Court then adjourned until Tuesday, the 30th inst.

-A Supposed Trace of Leichardt. — The " Cleveland Bay Express " of the 15th ult. says : — " A party just arrived from the Flinders country showed us a breech-loader rifle, picked up on the River Flinders, about twenty miles below Mr Hayes's station of Uichniond Downs, and supposed to have belonged to Leichardt, the explorer, or one of his party, Half of the stock of the rifle is eaten away by white ants, and, from the general appearance of the weapon it must have lain exposed to wet and weather for some years. The rifle is a patent thirty bore, and is numbered on. the barrel 3835, and is also marked with the Q-ovemment brand. We learn 1 that the part of the country where this rifle was found is seldom or ever visited by the white' man, and our informants have every reason to believe that the weapon in question was used by Leichardt."