SUPREME COURT.- CIVIL Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 534, 26 September 1871, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.- CIVIL Sittings.

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25. rßoforoHisHonorSirG.A.^KnigU, L Chief Justice, and a Common Jury, j Tnß civil busing of. th B Circuit Court was commenced this morning. ■d itvess OFi^HE CouBT.-Thero are seven B set do I for hea ing- The first taken cM%lZZ,t\v. MncComuck; GV.rletou v. • r 8 ™ng TMxed for Wednesday ; Noes v. rZZZ Sanerbier v. Dilworth (Thursday) ; KSl'v. Italian Gold Mining Company Kav) His Honor will sit in banco on i ~,7/r if possible. There are two special JSoouVes for hearing, but they have been i pd for days in next week, as follows:— MoNicol v. WHllis (Monday, 2nd of October) ; Mclntosh v. Home and another (Wednesday, 4th of October). Ferguson v. McCohmick.—This was an action to recover £400 by way of damages, occasioned to the plaintiff for breach of a contract to purebnse two parcels of shares in the Alburnia Gold Mining Company, under the dnumMf«oe. detailed in the plmntiH a evidsnee.—Mr. Hesleth appeared for the plam*ff Mr Eees for the defendant. — The declaration set out that the defendant had promised to sell to the plaintiff two parcels of shores in the Alburnia Gold Mining Company one consisting of twenty shares at £2 Bs,, and nnotlier of thirteen shares at £2 12s each. The plaintiff paid to the defendant a deposit. The transaction toot place on the 19th May. On the 18th of May the prices of Alburnia's were £2 7s. 6d. to £2 12s. ; but on the two days following they rose to £9 and £10 each. The plaintiff claimed £400 by wny of damages sustained through being unable to sell, the shares at a profit because of the breach of the contract by the defendant. There were no Jess than seventeen issues submitted for the finding of the jury. The defendant pleaded that he was induced to made the contract with the plaintiff for the sale of the shares by the fraudulent representations of the plaintiff: that the plaintiff deceived him by representing that the value of the shares was declining, whereas they were rising very rapidly. To the other counts of tho declaration, fhe' defendnnt pleaded a general denial of all tbo material allegaliona. Tbo facts will be gathered from the following evidence :— The plaintiff deposed that on the 18lh of May he met. the defendant, who worked nt the Tramway battery. Told the defendant that there was a chance of selling his shnres. Defendant said he was willing to sell his Alburnia shares as he wanted money to carry on with his other shares. Told the defendant the quotations that day were £2 7s fid per share. Defendant offered witness cerlain terras to I; lay him on to a customer." Witness had 33 shurcs in the Alburnia, and the defendant had 33 shares. Witness told defendant he intended to sell. Saw defendant the next morning at breakfast. Witness had sold 25 of his shares, and told defendant that he would purchase 20 of his shares at £2 Bs. Witness asked tho defendant if he would take a cheque for £10 as a deposit for the purchase of the 2') shares; Witness aaid " all right," or something to that, effect. The next day (Friday) witness asked defendant if he would sell the other 13 shares. Defendant repliad he would, if he could get a price. Witness offered him £2 125., taking the risk of some loss. Defendant accepted the offer, and witness paid bin a half-sovereign deposit. Witness gave the defendant all through to Understand that he bought to sell again, and the defendant sr.iil that if the plaintiif mode £5 by them he, defendant, would not complain, as he hiid obtained his price. The witness believed he would make a few shillings by the shares. The defendant had expressed a wish, as he was working on the night sh ft, that the witness would get the money from the bank and bring it to him. Witness got the money, £71 65., from'the bank, and went to defendant's lodgings next morning, but did not see him. Witness heard that it was the intention of the defendant to break tho bargain. Subsequently saw the defendant, who said he did inteud to break the bargain as the plaintiff had deceived him. Ho said plaintiff should have told the shares were rising in value. He also accused the plaintiff of having sold Alburnia at £4, and said the plaintiff should give him £4 each for them. Tho plaintiff told the defendant that he would stick to the bargain. The defendant asked witness (plaintiff) to give back the deposit, but witness said he could not do so, for if he did he would have to go and buy other shares in lieu of those which witness had sold. The defendant said " There was no use going to law ; that ho would deliver the shares if plaintiff "would give £4." The defendant had not only given up the shares to the plaintiff, but.he had sold them to other persons. The quotations on Tliuraday, the 18th of May, were £2 7s. 6d. Witness Was offered £2 sa. 6d. on Thursday, but. he refused to sell. The Albiirnias rose rapidly on Friday, and on the Saturday he could have obtained £10 for tlieui. On Friday night could have got £9 for tlie/c. On the Thursday witness sold a parcel of twentytwo shares at £2 Ba. Gd., and ou Friday afternoon a parcel of thirty-threo at. £4 each. Made the bargain with MacCormick at eight o'clock on the Friday morning, Tho defendant said tho reason he would not complete the sharos was that witness ought to have told him that the price was rising.—The defendant's case was that it was not early in tho morning of Friday that the contract was made, but at a iate period of the day, when the plaintiff must have kuown that the prices had greatly increased. The fraudulent representations averred by the defendant in his pleadings were that the plaintiff kuow that there was nothing in it (the mine), and that Hannaford and Russell were merely getting up the prices in order that they might sell out. The contention turned upon the question whether the contract was entered into before what was called the " spurt" came on, and the effect of a series of conversations between the plaintiff, the defendant, and others, which, if detailed, would possess no public interest. Witness denied that he ever said a man named Mac,-1 kay had told him that " the Alburnia was no good."—Tho plaintiff, in crossexamination, said that himself, the ■ defendant, and. another man were original holders off the ground called the " Clyde," for whicM each one got thirty- three shares,liv tho ALournia, Gold Mining Company.—ln answei/to what was to be done with the lOOth ftbflttl Ajie plaintiff said that Mr. 'Hannaford tos&r9pti they were to have "Yankee grab" fosHW— His Honor: "Yankee grab !"— daughter). What is that ?—Mr. Heskotfh : 1 do not know, your Honor, I believo .it is shaking something in the hat. , (Louj laughter). — Mr. Eces : Fast mei> c-f a past generation would have called hi' "rattling the bones," but he could nottncciy ratelydescribe the modus opemndL —His ijjoncodispensed with tho information, inasmuch als neither tho profession, the reporters, nor the gentlemen of the jury could inform tho Cloiirt of the recondite mystery of " Yankee g'tab." ~-Tliis Jitlle episode produced a great deial of merriment while the cause was proceedictg.4The case did not conclude at three o'olock|. | j