DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 342, 13 February 1871, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.—Monday.

[Before Thomas Beckham, Esq., District Judge.]

The fortnightly sitting of this Court was hold to-day, when the following business was disposed of. Jurymen Fined. —The jury list was called over, and the following not having answered their names—Mr. Wynn said that he was not prepared to go on. He would liUe to have a selection from the largest number possible.— It appeared that out of twelve jurymen summoned only six answered. —His Honor said he must inflict a fine of five pounds. — —Mr. Wynn thought jurymen should be fined. They might be called upon to show by affidavit that some good reason existed for their absence. —The following jurors were accordingly fined £5: —Henry Brett, John Bridgeman, William Brisbane, Edwin Brissenden, Samuel Britt. Adjourned.—The case of Ricsworth t. Smith was adjourned. Hay v. PAHiir.—Claim, £8 12s. The plaintiff proved his case iii the usual way, by deposing that the sum was due and owing. Judgment for plaintifT. Boyle v. Geaiiam. — The Cuttek Moss Rose.— Mr. Whitaker (junior), for the plaintiff ; Mr. Wynn, for the defendant. Ihe facts as stated by plaintiff's counsel were to the effect, that the plaintiff bought the vessel some two years ago from Mr. Charles Clark, for the purpose of employing her, as a, fishing boat. Two men named William and John Knox were taken in upon part profits to manage her, and to take her to and from the fishing ground. The boat was worth from £50 to £60. The Messrs. Knox were to repair the boat. Repairs were made by a person named Hewitt, of Ilowiek, who sued Knox for the amount. The boat was seized to satisfy a judgment given for the plaintiff Hewitt. The boat was sold by Mr. S. Cochrane, at auction, and bought by the defendant. The question was whether the plaintiff had admitted at the trial that the boat belonged to Knox. Plaintiff now denied that he had ever asserted or admitted the ownership of Kuox. When the boat was seized the plaintiff's solicitor told the bailiff and the auctioneer who subsequently sold the boat, that the boat was the property of the plaintiff. The defendant deposed that he bought the boat at public auction. The boat was sold under a distress warrant. The boat was knocked down at £16. —Mr. Wynn, for defendant, contended that it would be monstrous if persons buying at public auction should be subject to such proceedings as the present. No person would be safe. The defendant was a purchaser under the warrant, and whoever might be liable he was not. —The learned counsel on either side having addressed the jury, his Honor summed up, and the jury returned n verdict for the plaintiff, damage.?, £25, on the understanding that the defendant keeps the boat. —Mr. Wynn contended that in. actions of trover, there was a right to return. The defendant would undertake to return the boat in the condition he obtained it. If the boat were returned, the damages could only be nominal. —His Honor choughfc the Court had the discretion to say the damage should be nominal if the goods were returned, especially in a case like the present, where the defendant was wholly innocent of any wrongful act. If the boat were returned in the same condition, then the damages sho ild be nominal of one shilling. -