WARDEN'S COURT.

Western Star, Issue 988, 7 October 1885, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

•The following is the full text of Mr Wardea McCulloch's judgment in the caso Hill v. All Wing and others:—

It was proved at the hearing that the plaintiff's water-race had been damaged by m party of Chinese in a claim adjacent working up too close to the race, so as to deprive the ground traversed by the race of its natural Literal support; and further, that this ground had been shaken by blasting operations that had been carried on for some time in the Chinese claim, which appears to have been worked by Chinese wages men, employed by the owners of the claim. In my opinion, the evidonce clearly shows that Ah Wing and Chow Wai were part owners of the claim. Chow Wai, in his evidenco, says that he went to Mr Berndtson as the agent of other Chinamen, but Berndtson says that" he asked him to go and arbitrate between Hill and him," and Taylor says that Chow Wai arranged about the removal of the corduroy track so as to work the claim, as a partner, and called it "my claim," and this is not denied. It is further to be noticed that it was not shewn that, in any of the interviews about the settlement of the plaintiff's claim, he said he was the agent or messenger of other Chinamen, so that it was inferred with reason by Hill, Taylor, and Berndtson, that he. was acting as principal in the matter. I think that he held himself out to be—what he really was—a partner in the claim, and that he took an active interest in its management, and consequently that he, together with Ah Wing, is responsible to/ the plaintiff for- the damage done to the water race by the wages men in the course of their employment.—The Great Extended Sluicing Company v. Hales (Mac. 806) shews that there was nothing in the Goldfields Act, 1866, which affected the common law right to lateral support, neither do I find any oi that kind in the Mines Act of 1877. / Mr O'Reilly ippoared for plaintiff, Mr Finn for defendant, I