WARDEN'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 352, 16 September 1868, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Tuesday September 15. 1868. (Before J. Giles Esq., Warden.) MARSHALL AND PARTY V. TENNANT AND PARTY. This was a case that had been heard at the last sitting of the Warden's Court at Addison's Flat, and the decision only had been postponed till ye sterday. The facts were simply these Tenant and party, who held a large tunnel gave complainants permission to make a drive from it, and thereby drain their own claim. After some time the earth fell in and stopped up the drive, and the defendants refused to allow them to repair it, although they offered to box it in such a manner as to secure it, and the defendant's claim against future injury. The question for the Warden to consider, was whether after once permitting the complainants toputinthodrive, andgoto considerable expense, it was equitable for the defendants at once to put a stop to further working. The Warden after going minutely over the facts, came to the conclusion that his judgment would be for the complainants, but in order to provide against the alleged possibility of damage to the defendants, the complainants should give satisfactory security to the amount of £SO. The complainants were also to work in such a manner, and at such times as not to interfere with the defendants in any way, and in addition were adjudged to pay 30s t>er week for the use of the tunnel. If the defendants objected to these terms an alternative was left open to them to pay £SO to complainants, to compensate for their loss and expense in making the drive, on the permission obtained from the defendants.

In reply to Mr Tyler, the "Warden said he would grant .£6 6s as a professional fee in the costs, as the question was a new one and a reasonahle case to employ counsel in. It should be generally known that when leave was granted to parties to work ground, it could not be revoked at a moment's notice, after parties had been at ex- ; pense and loss of time.

WEST AND PARTY T. LASTGBISH AND PARTY. This was a complaint by "West and party against Langrish and party, the former alleging that the defendants held one hundred and four feet too much ground. Both parties have claims on German Terrace, which adjoin.

From the statement of the complainants, who were six in number, it appeared that they held ground on the frontage system 208 ft by 600 ft in depth, whilst the defendants, who were seven in party, held 380 feet in depth, by 600 feet frontage. "West and party therefore alleged that the defendants held more frontage than the regulations allowed, and sough

to take off 104 feet, in order to bring their ground up to the quantity they were en itled to. The Warden after hearing both parties, decided that the defendants did liold more ground than the regulations entitled them to, and awarded the extentsaed for to complainants.