DISTRICT COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume I, Issue 146, 28 June 1870, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—This Day.

(Before his Honor Judge Beckham.) JOSEPH TBIMBIiE V. THOMAS HENBY CHAW" FOBD. Claim £100, damages alleged to have been sustained through defendant refusing to sign a certain transfer of shares in the Shotover Gold Mining Company. Mr. Hesketh appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. J. B. Russell for the defendant. This case was heard partly on the previous day. Additional witnesses were called for the plaintiff. Walter Dudley deposed to being present at the Exchange Hotel on the evening when the conversation about the sale of shares was going on, and gave, generally, corroborative evidence: The plaintiff was next examined, and deposed to the purchase of the shares as stated by Mr. Ritchie the previous day. The evidence was in most respects exactly similar to that giveu by Mr. Ritchie, so that it is unnecessary to recapitulate it. This was the plaintiff's case. Mr. Russell addressed the jury upon the nature of the evidence he intended to lay before them for the defence, and afterwards called the following witnesses : — R. H. Bartlett, deposed : Remember the evening of the 13th of May. He was in the Exchange Hotel that night, w.th Messrs. Ritchie, Crawford, and . extie. They had come from Mr. Ritchie's office.. Some conversation took place at the office between Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Crawford in reference to these shares. The evidence of this witness was very similar to that given by Mr. Ritchie, with one exception. He stated that Mr. Ritchie urged Mr. Crawford to sell his shares, and that the latter said he would do so, but only on the I distinct understanding that the 1400 Shotovers referred lo were sold by auction. The defendant was next examined. He deposed that on the evening of the 13th June he had a conversation with Mr. Ritchie, r lative to Shotover shares - first in Mr Ritchie's office, and afterwards in the Exchange Hotel. Mr. Ritchie was not his solic-tor, but he called there to see Mr. Bartlett, who was waiting for him. Mr. Ritchie asked him if he had any Shotovers. Replied that he had 200. Ritchie said that 1400 were going to be sold by Mr. Newman on Monday, and he believeu j that some of them would be sold for 3s. or 4s. ■ Wittess replied that if he believed that 1-e would sell if he got a buyer, aud asked Mr. Ritchie if he though he could sell. He said he believed that he could not.. Then asked him to see if he could get an off-r, and he said that he would try and do so. They then went to 'he Exchange Hotel, when he saw Mr. Sextie. Ritchie aske I Sex'ie if he could sell any Shotovers. Sexlie said, " I could have sold some to-day at 7s. or 7s. 6d." * Ritchie asked him if he thought he could sell the next day. Sextie replied that he did not know whether he could or not. That he could not depend upon a buyer for more than two or three hours unless he could complete the trans fer. Ritchie asked him to see and get an answer by to-morrow morning for 100 and let him know. Witness saw Mr. Ritchie again the next morning between ten and half-past ten. His object was to tell him that he need not bother about getting an offer for the shares, as he had made up his mind not to sell. The reason was because the Shotovers would not be sacrificed, as he had made enquiries of Mr. Newman, who had told him the shares would not be sacrificed."Acquainted Mr. Ritchie with ihe fact. Mr. Ritchie said " All right, that he would tell Mr. Sextie not to bother al out them." He did not tell witness that Mr. Sextie had already been there. Saw Mr. Ritchie again about 4 c'clock, when ho told him (witness) that he had got a transfer for him to sign for the Shotovers. Refused to s;gn it, saying that he had given him no authority to sell. Saw Mr. Ritchie i again on Monday who asked him to sign, but he again refused. Ritchie theD said he would make him do so. Witness told him that although he was a lawyer he was not going to bounce him. Some days afterwards saw Mr. Sextie, who offered him a sum of money for the Shotovers he was supposed to have sold. Refused to take the money. The witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr. Hesketh. He had placed the shares in Mr. Newman's hands, and he believed he had sold them for 12s per share. Had received a dividend of 2s 6d per share since the date of these transactions. Seen Mr. Garlick before he Eaw Mr. Ritchie on the Saturday in question. This was the whole case, and'the learned counsel were addressing the jury as our reporter left.

[Left sitting.]