POET V. BELL.

Western Star, Issue 809, 16 January 1884, Page 2

POET V. BELL.

TO THE EDITOB.

Sir. —ln your report of the hearing in the Warden’s Court on 9th inst. of the complaint Port and Port v. Bell, thc-e is one part omitted whieh is of importance to all licensed holders of water or other rights. Your report correctly states that “ The next count in the information asked Bell to show cause why Bell’s right should not be cancelled, as he had obtained it by misrepresentation, as Bell had understated the length of the race.—The Warden : Ah, now we have a sensible objection. Why did you not raise that objection at the previous hearing of the case? —Plaintiffs Sol did, your Worship | but you told, me it was a mere quibble.—The Warden Now, Mr Port, I must check you. That is not the case.” Mr Editor, your report does not contain my reply thereto, which I made with' warmth and firmness. Plaintiff, looking full at the Warden, replied : “ Y»u did. You told me to hold my tongue at the time I was' reading the 11th subsection of the Act; that it was a quibble, and nothing but a quibble, and that you would not listen to mo.—The Warden: I never told you to hold your tongue. ' I have wished you to nave done so.—Plaintiff (extending his hand to the body of the court) : You did. And I can call witnesses now in court who heard you. The Act is for our guidance and yours also; nothing contained in the Act is a quibble.” Again, Mr Editor, during the hearing of the case against Bell heard on the 14th Deo. last, the warden said I ought to have objected at the time of Bell’s application being granted, and from the witness-box I replied, "So I did ; and I wish respectfully to recall to your worship your reply : You told me to bold my tongue ; it w is a quibble.” Also on same dale (mark his reply), when I in court produced portions of timber of Jume put up for us hv Bell (an examination of which would show the justice of our declining to fake the flume over in lieu of our dam). T ie Warden said : “I wont look at it” Did that reply show a desire to i iveitigate the case P As for t' e Warden s tying as he did on the 9th inst., that Bell was nulhorised by the decision of the court and ho consent of both parties to make the alt-ra'ion, I most distinctly and emphatically deny, and as a proof of my statement, I refer him or any of your realers to our written objection to his interference, which objection i s with Bell’s application, and retained as court records. Further, I refer them 'o the books of Hie court of cases heard, wherein our objection is recorded. Bell’s application was heard on the llth of September, 1883. T > the court 801 l a Imilto 1 cutting anav our dam befo- e the 9 h of November. Ho never went to the court to satisfy the W’arden that the conditions imposed on him (Bell) had been eomp’ied with until the 20th November, on w! ic'i da'e we complained to the court of the inefficiency of Bell s work. Mr Kirkton was ill n appointed to inspect and report to the Warden, which report was read on Dec. mber 4th, and pointed out that the stays to the flume wanted replacing by others. But, sir, I claim attention to this fact, which Bell cannot deny, between the time of our complaining and Kirkton’s insoection, Bell anl party cut new portions and enlarged the race, also improved the flume ; yet, when examined by Kirkton, he (Kirkton) reported that it required still further improvement. The Warden said: that on comp'elion of the work the dam should go. As Kirkton reported on 4th December alterations ware required to be made, how could Bell legally cut awav our da n on or before 9th November ? How can the Warden reconcile these dates with h : s own statements and Bell’s actions ?—I am, &e., C. A. Port. P.S. —I enclose a clinping from the “ Cromwell Argus” giving a report of a case bearing on the question:—“ A mining case of considerable interest occupied the Warden’s Comet on Thursday last. Mr D. Watkins sued the Ladye Fayre Company for the cancellation of defendant’s water right, on the grounds that they had obtained the same by misrepresentation,

inasmuch as they had not complied wi'h t n regulations in properly matting the fame out, and in not serving notice on plaintiff of their intention to apply for a race. The race is of considerable value, anil was to bo used for battery purposes during the ensuing season. The whole case hinged upon the main point of not having marked the nee out as provided by the regulations. The loss is a serious one to the company, who contemplate appealing against the decision, which was in favor of Walking. For the present, the prospect of additions in crushing power is T«ry vague.”—ln a decision given in the case Currie and Groin mill v. Stewart, heard on 4th December, at Riverton, the Warden decided (hat as the notices hud not teen posted in conformity with the regulations, it was liable to forfeiture, and cancelled it. —Vide Wkstehn Stab, sth December. C. P.