WARDEN’S COURT, OREPUKI.

Western Star, Issue 350, 19 May 1880, Page 2

WARDEN’S COURT, OREPUKI.

Monday, I7;th May. (Before J. N. Wood, Esq., Warden) Lennon v. Larry and Donovan. — Mr J. Taylor, mining agent., Kiverlon, appeared for plaintiff, who claimed £ll damages on account, of defenclanls using water which he averred belonged to himself. It appeared from the evidence that plaintiff rented a certain quantity of water from Turnbull and party from week to week. Do velet part of that water to defendants on condition that they were only to be supplied after plaintiff: -had received sufficient for his own use Alter that agreement had been in force for three weeks, plaintiff took the water away'from defendants as it became scarce, and. the parties bad a settling up for the'amount, supplied during that time. After a lapse of ten days plaintiff again asked defendants if they wanted water, to which they replied, yes, if they could get it. Defemlui ts then again commenced to use the water, and continued to do so until 23rd April, when plaintiff received mo: ice from Turnbull and' party that they reqviuo l the water for themselves, and plaintiff submitted to defendants that in consequence the supply to them must cease. On 22nd April plaintiff again ran short of water, and he told defendants that he required all that was available for bis own use. Defendants then refused to let plaintiff have nil the water, on the ground that they had as much right to it as Lennon as long as there was any supply. Lennsn swore that the verbal agreement was to the effect that he was to supply defendants only with the quantity of water over and above what he required for bis own use; whilst, do lend ants were equally positive’that defendant agreed to let them have a share of whatever quantity he got. Lennon gave notice on 23rd April to defendants to discontinue using the water, which the latter paid no attention to, andTn consequence plaintiff applied for and obtained from the Warden an injunction restraining defendants from using tlio water until the ease was heard in court. Defendants then applied to the Warden to have the injunction taken off, which the Warden grunted on condition that they held themselves responsible for any damages that he might award at l he hearing < f the case. This was agreed to. A great deal of evidence was taken as to the nature of the agreement between the parties. In addressing the court Mr Taylor relied strongly upon the fact that when the settlement took place at the end of the first three weeks’ supply, and aflerwaivs during the ten duj 3 when no water was given, defendants raised no objection to the stoppage. The Warden took this view of the case, but thought that defendants were entitled to a week’s notice. Holding tint view, he awarded 40s damages, 11s costs, and £3 3s professional fee.