BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 961, 12 April 1872, Page 2

BY ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH.

(from our own correspondents.) PORT CHALMERS. April 11. The ship Warwick, from London, has arrived. Her cargo includes one thousand tons of railway plant. TIMARU. April 11. The following is the result of the Timaru races:—> Maiden Plate—Gossip, 1: Border Lad, 2. Timaru Cup—Burgundy, 1: Slander, 2. Hurdle Race—Jennie, 1; Medora, 2. South Canterbury Handicap—Yatterina, I; Young Dainty, 2. = «ots. WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT. Monday, April 8. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) BRAITHWAITE T. M'LEOD AND PARTY. Plaintiff in person. Mr Fisher for defendants. This was a complaint by John Braithwaite for that, he being the holder of an ordinary claim of alluvial ground at the Middle Terrace, the defendants, on the 3rd day of April, 1872, without the sanction of the complainant, unlawfully interfered with the said claim by ground sluicing a portion of it away, whereby the complainant sustained" £lO damages. The plaintiff stated that he pegged out the ground on the 30th March and posted notice for protection on the 3rd April. Saw M'Leod on the ground on the 3rd instant. He turned the nose of his hose on to complainant's ground and washed away a notice paper. He also washed a stump and some earth off complainant's claim into defendants' tail-race. By Mr Fisher: Had not represented or worked on ground since the pegging out. Had not placed one of his pegs inside defendants' lease. Did not peg out the ground with a view to interfering with the working of defendants' claim. Believed there was some wash dirt on the claim. Knew that defendants had worked the ground before. Intended to work it by ground sluicing. Believed there was more than 5s worth of gold in the ground. Plaintiff called two men named Sorrenson and Lusk in support of his case. Mr Fisher declined to cross-examine them.

Mr Fisher opened defendants' case, and characterised the action as an obstructive and frivolous one. Plaintiff knew very well that the ground pegged out by him was worked out and useless, there was nothing but mullock and stones upon it. He never intended to work it bonafule, and so had taken advantage of the holidays and the protection they afforded to peg it out. The complaiuant had put one of his pegs 10 or 15 feet inside the defendant ' claim, right in the head of their tail-race, and because the defendants in working their claim had interfered with this peg (which had no right there) he brings an action for damages. Added to which the complainant was aware that the defendants were working at a face some 80 feet high, and that it would be very difficult for them to abstain from falling some earth on his claim until they got further into their lease and made a margin to work in. Kenneth M'Leod, Pierre Bossard, and five other witnesses substantiated the case for the defendants, and proved there had been no interference with plaintiff's claim except of a most trivial character. On Tuesday morning, after hearing counsel for the defendants and Mr Braithwaite in support of his case, his "Worship gave judgment. The case seemed to him to come within the legal maxim de minimis non curat lex. There had been no intentional or considerable injury done to the plaintiff's claim. There may have been a few handfuls of wash dirt carried away by the defendants' ground sluicing operations, though the weight of the evidence was against even that. He should give judgment for the defendants with costs —Counsel, £3 3s ; witnesses and subpoenas, £4 15s. Mr Braithwaite gave notice of appeal.