WARDEN'S COURT.

Western Star, Issue 353, 29 May 1880, Page 3

WARDEN'S COURT.

T rid ay, Mat 28th. (Before J. N. Wood, Esq., Warden) Long Loy v. Berndtaon.—This was a complaint against defendant for having on the 15th May, interfered and trespassed on plaintiff’s claim to injury of same for which he claimed £lO damages. Long Loy (through interpreter) deposed ; I remember Saturday week last: About 3 p.m., I noticed new pegs in my ground. They were not there in the morning, as I was over the ground. Ly Chong told mo they were defendant’s. My pegs were in the ground in their place and defendant’s pegs were within mine. I went to Eiverton as I wanted te get a plan made out, and take out a summons ugainst defendant. I engaged Mr Lyell to make out a plan and took out a summons. I have had the claim nearly twelve months. The pegs have been in all the time, and have never been moved by me. I have not worked in any other claim, since I took this one up. Berndtson did not ask me to show him my pegs on Saturday the 15th. (Defendant’s plan produced.) 1 do not understand it. (Lyell’s plan produced.) I understand this one. There is a difference of about sft. between defendant’s peg and my bottom peg. I recognise my two top pegs on the plan. Last Saturday one of them was moved, I atnjinformed, by Tom O’Brien. I was not present when Marsh was marking off the ground. 1 was there when Lyell was taking measurements. I knew where the peg had beou moved from, as I remember where I put it. The other peg ma:ktd on the map was lately put in.by Berndston. Joseph Lyell, surveyor. I made a survey of plaintiff’s claim last Tuesday, and the plan produced is the one I made out. In company with Mr Dundas, Ly Chon-.-, Long Loy, and the interpreter, I started from a peg below O’Brien’s hut; 193 feet above that I found a new peg, said to have been put .in by defendant; 33 feet further on I was shown a hole from Which Long Loy’s top peg was said to have been removed ; 65 feet above that I came cn another new peg said to have been defendant’s four feet beyond that was Ti Ke’s bottom peg ; six feet above I found a peg said to be defendant’s ; 126 feet above defendant’s 1 (came on Long Loy’s loj. peg ; J 65 feet above that I again (came to apeg of defendants. It is 297 feet from upper to lower peg; four feet above that is Ti He’s bottom peg. ‘ . Mr Dundas, who assisted Mr Lyell in his measurements, corroboi ated the above testimony. Ly (Jhong : I first knew the claim in dispute on Saturday week last. About- 3 p.m, 1 saw Dick Marsh. O’Brien, an I defendant measuring I lie ground. Marsh shifted Ti Ke’s lower peg io make it square. Ti Ki- was there. I saw defendant putting in pegs ne ir Ti Ke’s prgs. Cross-examined by defendant: You asked me to show the pegs. I said as Long Loy was not there I could not toil you. You showed me a hole whore a peg had been, and other three pegs. 1 v.. ; > Long Loy recalled : I claim for £io damages because it cost me four days waier and other expense. Thomas O’Brien having commencedto give evidence in defence of Berndston, the two plans were again produced', compared, and gone over carefully by the Warden and Messrs Lyell, Dundas, Berndston, and witness and the surveyors and defendant and O’Brien agreed -in their measurement in all but one side, where Ti Ke’s bottom pegs were.: ■ ■ ■ •* ~ His Worship ordered a fresh survey to be made of the part in dispute to-day (Saturday) ; expenses of survey to form part of the costs.