WARDEN'S COURT.

Inangahua Times, Volume II, 22 June 1881, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT.

Fatueday, June 17th 1881. (Before Mr Warden Revell.) Fbank M'Lean and others v. Keep-it-Dabk Company. This was a claim of £3 0 for accumu* lated percentage, which had arisen in connection with a contract which the plaintiffs had entered into with defendants for breaking nut quartz, and wherein it was proyided that progi ess payments of 75 per cent were to be made from time to time, and 25 per cent allowed to accumulate tin il the sum of £300 wa« reached, when that 'amount was to be handed over to the plaintiff* by the Keep-it-Park Company. This had been applied for and refused/and the plaintiff* now sued for the recovery of the same. Mr Jones* appeared for'plaintiffs, and Mr Lynch for defendants. On the Court requirin??miner's rights to be produced, it was stated by Mr rJtmea — tha t— «4ro— -plointiff^—w-oikim; fo» a company, who had a constituted miner's right, did not consider that possession of miner's right by them was necessary, as they were mere contractors for raising quar<z fur the defendants out o' a lease held by defendants. The Court considered that any persm coming to this Court required to have a miner's right, as otherwise he could have no standing. In this case, the Court would allow miner's rights now to te taken out, which was done, and the ca?e gone into. Mr Lynch objected to the case proceeding any further, and tasked for an adjournment, as an action was now pend ing in a higher Court, v herein the nnK-unt now claimed was already ineluded. Mr Jones denied that this amount had been included in [the £1000 sued for it another Court, and submitted that the two actions were for different purposes ; the one for breach of^contract, this} one for money whi^h had been actually earned, but left in tbe bands of the defendants. Tbe adjournment refused, and Mr Jones proceeded to explain ibat the action was'broughl on a s; ecial contract between the .parties, and read clauses of the agreement. Mr 'Lynch 'admitted the "agreement, and the incorporation of the company. An argument then ensmd as to the jurisdiction of the Court, which was gone into at great lenglb. The' C urt ruled it had jurisdiction. The following evidence was called :— Jjimes Pollock : I am a miner, and one of the plaintiffs in this action. We were contractors for raising quartz ; I hare"re« ceived'certificates from the mining mnnager from time to time and drawn money from the company— a balance of £300 remains in our favor. When we com* | menced to work on our contract, some parts of the mjne were in good order, other parts were not. John M'Masters' I am the mining manager of the E>ep»it-I)ark Company ; I have given a ceriificafe*io the eompnny ahout tbe work of tbe contractors. The one now produced is a copy of the eerti* ficate given by me. It is not an ex.ict copy. I sentjin the certificate about the 21st of April. At the time of signing j this we had the original before u« ; Iw: s not told what to put in the certificate. The first certificate was returned to mo ; Ido not know v»h it became of it ;I in tended the one written by me as a final certificated |This one Jnow produced is substantially the same. I sent in a report on one sheet of paper, and*tbe certificate on another. Ihe certificate^ now before the Court was framed upon the contents of mine ; I gave Mr Bowman my first on the 9th April. Tbe one now produced was dated on the 23rd of May. To meet the emergencies of this case, this one was made out. The first one was the proper and honest"certificate of John M 4 Masters. This one is a corrected edition provided Jbr'if it came to Court. The orignal certificate is^not des» troyed ; it could be found if looked Jfor in my bouse ; I think I could.find it. At this stage, Mr Jones asked for leave to amend the plea, by inserting fraud and collusion as an additional couut, The Warden granted leave, and adjourned till next regular Court day. Tbe costs of the adjournment to be included in the costs of the case.