RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume VI, Issue 978, 11 June 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Monday, Jene 10. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Rafforty v. Pell. Claim for £2O damages for loss sustained by detention of good*, and damage thereto from careless keeping. Mr Fisher for defendant. Plaintiff had entrusted to defendant certain goods used in the manufacture ofwordials, and a quantity of empty bottles for transit by boat to the Landing and thence to Reefton, which he alleged had boon unduly detained at Westport and damaged by exposure out of doors. In defence defendant stated that lie only accepted the freight conditionally on being permitted to forward it at his own convenience, and also on the statement made by plaintiff, that the goods were not of a perishable nature. That the goods had been shifted from one house to another owing to the encroachment of the sea, and ultimately kept in Westport as plaintiff had returned from Reefton. He, defendant, offered to buy a tc.nt alleged to be damaged, and also pay for certain small articles said to be injtired while in his possession. Mr Fisher pleaded that his client could not be held liable for damages, inasmuch as the perishable nature of the goods was not explicitly sta'od, and that the plaintiff had no claim for loss of time, seeing that he had not carried on business at Reefton. The claim for £l4 14s loss of time was disallowed, and a verdict of £5 for damages was recorded.

Patterson v. Hakaria, and same v. Donker (Maoris), adjourned. «> WESTPORT WARDEN'S COURT. (Before J. Giles, Esq., Warden.) Monday, June 10 Muuro v. Eteveneaux.—case struck out. Blakely v. Bebil.—claim to enforce forfeiture of a mining claim on the Totara Beach. Mr Fisher for defendant. Plaintiff pleaded that defendant had forfeited his right to a registered claim, seeing that be had followed the occupation of ferryman for three weeks past, and had not worked oji the claim in accordance with the mining regulations. "Walter Brown gave evidence as to the sale of the claim on the 16th May, and that on the 26th plaintiff had posted a notice of application for protection. In the interval the defendant had worked at the ferry, occasionally lending a hand at work connected with bringing in a supply of water for that and other claims, and that defendant could not work the ground until water had been brought thereon. Mr Fisher argued that lona fide work in connection with the claim was shown by the evidence of the witness. Nicholas Bebil, deposed that he bad worked at the erection of a windmill, for the purpose of lifting water for this and other claims, occasionally ferrying* passengers across the river, and that during the eleven days in question he had prospected the claim. Plaintiff contended that under the Goldfields Act, the holding of auriferous ground by persons following other occupations than miners was never contemplated. That to hold the claim it was necessary that defendant should either personally occupy it, or be represented by another. The Court held that under certain cases it was desirable that persons should be enabled to earn other means of subsistence pending tho completion of preparations for working claims, but where parties were employed in bringing in water for the general working of several claims they should, as a matter of precaution, obtain protection for each special claim. In this case substantial reasons had been

given for not working the ground, and defendant had shown that he had done sufficient to affirm bis title to the claim. Forfeiture disallowed. Frederick White v. John Hughes.— Interference with business section. Mr Fisher, for defendant pleaded prior possession. Plaintiff gave evidence as to having, on the 20th of May last, under power of a business license, pegged out section No. IG7 in Palmerston street, having first examined it and fouud no pegs thereon or notices of application for protection. On the 25 th he received letter from Mr Hugher, giving notice that he claimed the section. No work had been done on the ground prior to the 25th, and the only pegs there wore those placed by the surveyors. William Lloyd gave similar evidence. By Mr Fisher: Had inspected the ground a week previously. Had offered to make the necessary applications for Mr White for the usual fee paid to agents. First ascertained that there were no pegs on the ground on the Sunday previous to making the application. Robert Whyte gave evidence as to having taken up adjoining section to that claimed by plaintiff, and that no Work had been done on either prior to the 20th May. Had noticed no trees cut down or pegs placed in position, or holes wherein pegs might have l?eeu placed. John Fielder gave evidence as to claiming section 167, and that he had noticed no one working on the ground in dispute until the afternoon of the 28th.

Mr Lloyd, recalled—By Court am certain that no pegs were on the sections, 16G, IG7, 1(38, excepting survey pegs, and that one of these was missing. Section 165 is occupied but there were no pegs Bofcvveen that & 16G The defeudant stated that he had on the 17th May, in company with Michael Organ, pegged off the three sections, placing two, three, and four foot pegs by the side of the surveyors' pegs, wherever he could find them, and where the survey pegs were missing, measuring off as nearly as possible to GG feet. Had before lost a case in consequence of not pegging off, and therefore took particular care in this instance. Engaged W. Graham on the 19ih to go down and clear away timber. Was on the ground between the 17th and 20th, and replaced pegs where they were not standing. By Plaiutiff: I hold eight sections in Westport, and can produce the necessary business licenses. Have not done so as you have given me no legal notico. William Carter Graham deposed as to having engaged with Mr Hughes to clear the ground, and that on the 20fch May he saw the pegs in proper position, and that Mr Hughes then drove some extra pegs to prevent any mistakes in clearing the ground. By Plaintiff—Saw you post your notice on the ground and told defendant, who told me to 'keep on with my work. By Court-When Mr Lloyd told mo there were no pegs on the ground, I told him there had been pegs there. The people living about the neighbourhood are in the habit of taking any loose timber or sticks for firewood, and the tramway people also took any stray wood for forming the road, and he had cautioned people not to take away pegs from the sections.

Mr Fisher pleaded that no reason had been shewn to cast suspicion on the evidence of his client, as to the substantial pegging off of the ground in the presence of a witness prior to the 19th May, and that although a learned judge had recently ruled that occupation of a section might consist in living 'up a tree,' or burrowing uuder the ground, his client was justified in making preparations for a more eligible habitation. The only doubtful question was as to. the maintenance of the pegs in position, which he maintained had been fully proved by the evidence of his clients' witness. Plaintiff denied the statement of the Witness Graham as to working on the ground on the days stated by him, and contended that if he, the plaintiff, had illegallly taken possession of the ground it rested with the defendant, as the alleged prior occupant, to bring an action against him for trespass. The Court in giving judgment said the decision of the question rested upon two points. First whether the defendant had legally taken up the ground prior to the plaintiff, and secondly whether he had done anything thereafter to forfeit his claim to possession. On the first point the legitimate occupation of the ground had been proved, and on the second it appeared from the evidence that the defendant had done all that could be reasonably expected, under the circumstances of bad weather and difficult work, to maintain his right to held possession. The summons was therefore dismissed. The cases R. Whyte v Hughes and Fielder v Hughes, involving similar disputes, were withdrawn.