SUPREME COURT. — Civil Sittings.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 537, 29 September 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. — Civil Sittings.

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29

, | [Before His Honor Sii'Q. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice, and a Common Jury.] , Tira civil business of the Qavterly Circuit : Court was resumed this morning. i Sattrkbtbr v. Dilwohth.— Mr. Maci Cormick and Mr. Heslcefcli for the plaintiff; Mr. Rees for the defendant.—The hearing of i I this o luso (part heard) was resumed.—Mr. I Roes opened the defendant's case. He was prepared to offer evidence that Mr. Dilvvorfch was never asked to give up his deed, and therefore did not refuse ; Mi at the plaintiff had actually received £500 of the sum of £1000 advanced. The following additional evidence was adduced : — Mr. Dilvvorth, the defendant, said her was a settler residing in the neighbourhood of Auckland. Knew Mr. Richmond the oolieitor. Met him in respect of a letter received from the plaintiff. Mr. Richmond asked witness what he was going to do respecting it. Witness replied ho did not know, and that Mr. Richmond had better see Mr. Whitaker. Witness did not say he would not comply with the request contained in the- letter. Did not say he would defend any suit. Did not understand the matters referred to. Knew ho (witness) was speaking to an opposing lawyer, and therefore referred Mr. Richmond to Mr. WhitaKer. Lent a £1000 upon the deed of mortgage, which is signed by E. J. Cox, as Sauerfoier's attorney. Could not remember from whom ho received the deed conveying Outhwaite to Sauerbier. Cox produced all the deeds neee3sary to complete the title upon receipt of cheque for £1000. Had no suspicion. Mr. Brook field hud transacted business for witness. He found that all which Mr. Brook field transacted was perfectly right. Cox paid to witness one quarter's interest, £31 ss, in January, 18G7, and went away (absconded) in March following. Witness thought ho was dealing with Mr. Brookfleld. —In cross-examination the witness admitted that Mr. Brookfleld had done a great deal of business for him. The business done by Mr. Bro.k'jVJif for him might bo charged by "-U rook field and Oox." Witness drew a cheque in favor of Snuerbier, " per Brookfleld and Cox " Knew ho was paving the money through the firm of Brookfiesd and Cox, but gave the money to Cox, Employed no solicitor, not even Brookfleld and Cox. Believed things would be right, having confidence. Witness declined to deliver up the deed. Believed that Mr. Sauerbier bad received £000 of the money advanced. (The witness explained that he believed Cox went to the Bank of Auckland, and out of the £1000 go!, a draft for £500, which he remitted to the plaintiff.) The witness thought that £500 ought to be repaid before he could ask that the deed should be given up.—Mr. MaeCormicU : 'I here is nothing like speaking plain. -Witness : i believed that the pliiititiH' had ,Co(i(J of the money advanced by me. — Mr. MaoOormick : If you can prove that, it will I),, important no doubt.—The witness aenied that ho had any lengthened conversation with Air. Richmond, ns the quest ion was ono of law, and ho referred Mr. Richmond to Mr. Whitaker.— Mr. Kelly, chief clerk in tha Registry Office, produced the power of attorney from Sauerbier to Cox, which wns tendered in evidence, but not read.—Mr. Hendrie wa3 called to prove the draff, from Cox to Sauerbier, through tho Bank of Auckland, Cor £500.— Mr. Mic;'onnick tendered in evidence the letter of Cox to Sauerbier, enclosing the draft of £500, to show that the money in the draft was no part of the £1000 received by Cox from Dilworth. That it must be shown by defendaut that the £500 was part of the £1000, as iv the declaration alloged. He was prepared to put in all the letters from Cox to Sauerbior.— Mr. Rees admitted that Sauerbier had sworn that ho knew nothing about the mortgage until April, 1807, and that he never received any money on account of it.—Mr. Kissling, attesting witness to the power of attorney, proved his signature to the instrument. —This concluded the evidence iv the case.