LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2137, 1 May 1914, Page 5

LAW REPORTS.

COURT OF APPEAL

' OATS IN S,S; STAR OF CANADA

SOUTHLAND CASE,

. WHERE JUDGE & JURY DIFFERED. ■ ' ■/ . ■' ■ /■'■•■ A considerable portion of the.sitting of tho Court .of Appeal' yesterday was devoted to hearing argument by counsel in the, appeal.of "John Batger, of Luvercargill, against a Supreme Court decision in favour of Robertson and Son, of Auckland. '. ■ ;';■'''". '' In tho Supreme Court action it had been set forth, that Batger had bought a quantity of oats from Robertson and Son, who had sent a' number of sacks to tho Bluff, but-Batger had sued him for alleged failure to.deliver 1846 sacks, for tho reason that he considered that that portion of the whole .was unsatisfactory. The case was heard before a special jury, which found in favour of liatger, holding that the latter was entitled to recover £888, Notwithstanding this finding, his Honioir Sir Joshua Williams gave judgment for Robertson and Son. His Honour remarked that Batger had shipped the oats for England by tho Star of Canada (which, by tho way, subsequently became stranded at Gisborne, and considerable loss resulted'on the oats shipment), and that ■not until four days after the vessel sailed .had ho made any complaint to Robertson a'ndSon or refused to acoept the oats. The oats when shipped, his Hon-. our added, had become the property of Batger, and wero at his risk when,the Star of Canada was strandeU.. -. : ; Tho present appeal was heard by their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert ..Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Sim. Mr. W. C. M'Gregor, of Dunedin, appeared for tho appellant,' and Dry H. D. Bamford for . respondent. . . :■,'■; c■ .- ■• ■ ' , The grounds for appeal were:—(l) His Honour's judgment -was erroneous in fact and law; , (2) such further grounds as were disclosed by tho facts of tho case and the judgment."- ■■.-'' . On tho conclusion'of. thu argument the Court reserved decision., ■ ■; ; \> ,

WILL PROBLEM. . THE LAST WISH'OF DECEASED. -Lato ia.tlie afternoon the.Court commenced tho hearing of a summons taken under the.Declaratory Judgments Act, 11)03, in the matter of the cstijte o£ the late Samuel Huggart, of Blenheim, a retired farmer. Tho plaintiff is Richard Webb Jenkins, manager of the Bank of Now South Wales, at Blenheim, and the defendant,is the Public Trustee, executor under the will. The matter came before the' Supreme Court some time ago," but -was removed l into the Court ot Appeal. Facts bearing on the case were that by his last, will the deceased had allotted almost the whole,of his estate to his brother, or, after tho brother, to tho ' brother s daughter. Subsequently, when deceab»d was lying ill in a.hospital, he sent for Mr. Jenkins (tho plaintiff), who had beeii his banker and financial adv yiser for.many years, and asked him to find out what his property was worth. Deceased was surprised on learning that, , he was worth over £7000, and remarked that hi <hd not see why he should-leave so much nionoy to his brother siiid njee'e. Hodiscussed tho matter of making an. other will, and added that when ho was better he would sign a new one. His health became worse 1 , /however, and he. told Mr. Jenkins that ho would like to' make a new will at once. This, hpwever, could not be done, but on the'sug* gestion of, Mr. Jenkins, deceased drew £2500 ;upon the Public >Trusteo, and . handed the withdrawal paper to Mr. . Jcukins to furnish the latter with, means of carrying out his wishes. In ,the course/of this transaction Mr. Jenkins understood that certain sums would ygo to cortain '. charities, and , - other' amounts might-be given to four cousins in Holand. Mr. Huggart died about 24 hours later. Tho Public Trustee has, howover, declined to make payment of tlijb £2500, and. the main question for tho Court is whether he must pay over tho amount',or*not..'. ■ ' For the hearing of the case tho bench consisted of their Honours tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, and Mr. Justice Hosking. Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. D. R. Hoggard, appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr. C. P. Skerrett, K.C., with him Mr. T. F. Martin and Mr. J. W. Macdonald, represented the defendant. Argument had not concluded when tho Court rose for the day.