WARDEN'S COURT.

West Coast Times, Issue 348, 3 November 1866, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

(Before C. C. Schaw, Esq., Warden.) Friday, November 2. Breach of this Goldfiblus Act. — Chas. Weitzel was charged with carrying on the business of restaurant-keeper, without the authority of a license. The prosecuting constable deposed that on the '26th ult. he visited the European Restaurant, and asked the defendant to produce hi-, license, which he failed in doing, not being possessed of one. The constable warned him to get one as soon as possible. On the 30th, called upon him again, and found that he was still unprovided. Gave him an hour's grace to get the necessary document, which he failed to take advantage of. Defendant pleaded that he was not provided with the money to d.> so then, but had since obtained a licence. The Warden took a lenient view of the case, and dismissed it, remarking that the defendant's plea was no justification, as the law relating to licenses wns clearly defined and well understood by the public He should deal more rigorously with the next case of the kind brought before him. Hokitika and Greymouth Tramway Company v. John Wells. — This case was adjourned at the last sitting of the Court, in order that assessors might be appointed to decide upon the amount of compensation to be awarded defendant for the damage his market garden would receive by the tramway being tukm through it. 1 welve assessors were summoned,- out of which number Messrs Hill/Gibson. Mader, and Lowrie were chosen to act, and sworn. In his address the Warden pointed out t c duty which devolved upon them. They were only to assess- actual damage, and not take into consideration prospective loss. Mr Cooper, mining surveyor, would accompany them when thoy visited the ground to point out the exact line of tramway through the gardens. But as the weather was so inclement he (the Warden) presumed they would defer their inspection until a more favorable opportunity of so doing presented itself, and would, therefore, receive their decision on Tuesday next. There were several other cases in connection with the tramway which on last court day weie adjourned for assessment, and these they would have to adjudicate up >v as well. Mr South (counsel for defendants) in reply to Mr Cd-Hpbell, who appeared for plaintiffs, declined to address the assessors then as he would rather postpone doing so until after they had visited the ground. He considered that the clause in th~> Agricultural Lease Regulations, upon which the action was based, would in its construction leave wide interpretation. Mr Campbell stated to the court that another party, whose hut was on the line of road, had not been summoned. The Warden asked if he held a miner's right, and being answered in the affirmative, said there was no occasion to summon him, but the company must remove the hut to ai.other position equally as good. 1 hat was the law. If the owner of the hut objected to its removal the compiny could then bring him before the court. Barry v. Collins. — ]£o appearance of defendant. This case arose' from the refusal of defendant to pay an equitable share of the expenses or 1 a claim in which he was a shareholder. Complainant stated that the claim in question was situated on the Blue Spur lead, and was worked by four men. lirdriving they inadvertently encroached upon their neighbors' ground, and were mulcted in damages by the Warden to the amount of LI 7. His mates being short of cash complainant paid the money, and iifterw.irds asked the defendant for his share ,of the sum, which he refused to pay : hence the present action. Complainant remarked that the defendant now had plenty of money, and was drinking about the town. Verdict by default, costs and expenses through loss of time being albwed. The Court was then adjourned" until • Tuesday next, at 11 a.m.