WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 479, 18 March 1869, Page 2

WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT.

Thubsday, Maech 16. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) Michael Travers v. Lachlan Hunter. —A dispute as to priority of right to water for a head-race in the Lyell district. Mr Tyler appeared for the complainant. After evidence had been given, the Warden considered that the complainant's party, although their application was first in point of time, had really abandoned it; and he gave judgment in favor of the defendants. Homer, Grey, Fox, and parties, German Terrace.—A series of crossactions, in which Mr Home and Mr Pitt appeared for Homer and party, and Mr Tyler for the other parties. The Warden, in giving his decision, said there were really two distinct cases —one between Homer and Barrie or Fox, and one between Homer and Grey. The question in the first case rested upon certain rules and the meaning of rules as to the amalgamation of claims. The second case depended on the mere credibility of evidence concerning certain boundary pegs. The case for Grey was that Homer had forfeited the amalgamation on the ground that they no longer held the amalgamated claim, or could not hold it under the rules. His opinion was that where amalgamation was once granted, a party had no right to move their pegs without the leave of the Warden. Technically, in every case there would be a forfeiture by moving pegs, but it did not follow that it could be carried out in all cases. Supposing a party had obtained amalgamation on a large field where there were no other parties at work, they might put in a tunael, and might find that the lead was juot a little outside of their boundaries. In that case, nobody could object to them moving their pegs. At the same time, in doing so, they would be acting contrary to the spirit of the rules, because it was quite clear that amalgamation must mean an amalgamation of two claims existing, not claims'to be taken up. If it were held to refer to future claims, there would be no limit to it. On the other hand, as he had said, on ground unoccupied by others, and where the moving of the pegs was of small extent, it would be absurd to say that a party should forfeit their certificate. In such a case they would probably be let off with a merely nominal fine. The present case was not an extreme one, one way or the other. It was not altogether so trifling as the first case he had supposed. Homer's party had frequently moved their pegs, and he certainly thought that they should not be allowed to do so without suffering for it. There was only one reason which decided him against cancelling their certificate, without any redemption, and that was that the other party did not appear to have taken up this ground at the time of the last movement of pegs, and made no objection then. Had they done so in any way at the time, he probably would have given then the ground, but the others had been allowed to go on in security, and they Bhould therefore be allowed to redeem their forfeiture by a pecuniary fine. Another reason was that it was the first time that the question had been raised, and many men might have been ignorant of the way in which the rule would be interpreted. It was quite true that there was nothing expressed in the rules about this. It was not stated particularly that parties must not alter the ground which is granted, and many miners might interpret it differently, if the case had not been raised. As far as concerned this case, he held that Homer's party had forfeited their certificate, but, in consideration of this being the first time the point had been raised, he would allow them to redeem their forfeiture by payment of £lO, of which £5 would go towards the other party's costs. In the other case —between Homer and Pox or Barrie—the evidence was very conflicting, but he considered that the weight of evidence was in favor of the latter, and judgment would be for them. By this judgment Homer and party lost seven feet of ground, and had to bear expenses, amounting to £7 lis.

Wednesday, Mabch 17. Naiamith v. Ronaldson.—The complainant's party complained against the defendants for wrongfully holding possession of ground belonging to them

[ on Rochfort Terrace, and claimed £lO t damages. Mr Pitt appeared for the [ complainants. The Warden consid- ! ered that the evidence on both sides entirely supported the complainant's right to the ground, and that the case was obstinately pursued on the part of the defendants. Judgment was given for the complainants, with £lO damages and full costs, including £5 5a as counsel's fee. The Court was occupied until a late hour with the disposal of a long list of applications for tunnels, water-races, and dams, on the Northern Terraces, on the Lyell, and up the Buller.