WARDROP v. BRAITHWAITE.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 856, 31 August 1871, Page 3

WARDROP v. BRAITHWAITE.

(To Mie Editor of the Westport Times and Charleston Argus.) Sir, —It is the just boast of the British people that they live uuder a constitution which has no equal in the world, since it secures independence to the individual, and metes justice to »U. But this boast only holds good so long as the administration of the law is in unisou with the spirit of the constitution, and I contend that here in Westport such is not the case. It is well that this community is intelligent enough to distinguish between a defective constitution and defective administration of the law, else what would be the state of society after three or four years of such administration as we have experienced. As an example which is by no means rare, we may take a case with which lam very familiar—that of Wardrop v. Braithwaite, which came before his Worship last week, and, after reading the evidence, correctly enough for our purpose reported by you, may ask who (excepting Dr Giles) with the smallest particle of either common sense or conscientiousness, could have given such a decision ? Does not the evidence of the plaintiff prove beyond doubt that he allowed himself to become protector to Hodden for the express purpose of defeating the ends of justice, and preventing the defendant from obtaining his just and legal rights-; yet the plaintiff is uuheld by the law as administered by Dr Giles in thus protecting a worthless fellow. Surely a man like Dr Giles, endowed with such eminent intelligence, can fully appreciate the effect that such a decision 'must have upon the morals and the pockets of the people, as well as upon transactions entered into by men in all good faith that the law would be duly administered. Will it not open a clear way to rascality, which, ii allowed, is likely to turn society upside down, and tend to annihilate honesty ? Dr Giles might be excused If tne law were on his side, but justice and common sense are alike against him, and all are aware that the matter is not of sufficient importance to warrant an appeal to the Supreme Court. In conclusion, I beg t® lender Dr Giles a small piece of advice, which-, if .not palatable, has at least the merit of honesty, and is therefore valuable. It 5b that he unwind that coil of morbid sensitiveness which envelopes him, that he doff that helmet of egotism, and leaving the translation of Latin verse as a suitable literary exercise for schoolboys, descend to practical life, and apply himself wholly to the duties which belong to his office—duties sufficiently arduous and engrossing to demand all the time, energy, and intelligence which ordinary men can command or possess. If such advice can or will not be followed, this proposition alone regains to be solved, whether the respectable people.must all leave the district, leaving nil their property behud them, or whether the local administration of the law must give Place to some other more in unisou With the generally accepted notions of justice and expediency, Hoping you will find space in your P a per for this letter, I am, &c, Jousr BbaitßWaite.