SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2875, 13 September 1916, Page 8

SUPREME COURT

* CIRCUS ANIMALS a long-standing DISPUTE 'lit the Supreme Court yesterday morning, before Mr. Justics Chapman, the case of William John Baker v. Francis Joseph Worley, a dispute of long standing, .was called. The plaintiff claimed possession of certain animals and damages for their alleged wrongful detention.

. Mr. H. F. O'Leary, who appeared for the defendant, said ho was reluctantly compelled to ask for an adjournment. Up to a day or so ago he was under tho belief that he would 1 be able to proceed with the case, but, his client., Worley, otherwise known as Barton, proprietor of Barton's Circus, was seriously ill in Auckland, and in support of his application for an adjournment Mr. O'Leary produced a certilicato from his client's medical adviser, which stated that Worley was suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, and had been ordered to a -sanatorium for six months.

The application for adjournment' was opposed by Mr. P. W. Jackson, who appeared for plaintiff. He referred to the groat trouble and expenso incurred 1 by his client, in endeavouring to bring the case to trial. On account of the nature of defendant's occupation it was difficult to locato him. The plaintiff was also the proprietor of a travelling circus, and had arranged his sliorr dates in euch a manner as to bo within easy reach of Wellington fpr the present trial.

Replying to His Honour, Mr. Jacksoil said that it was now acknowledged that the animals in question were the property of the plaintiff and the only matter really involved' in tlio. dispute was'that of'damages;' Continuing, lie stated that ho had been informed by his client that the defendant. was about to leave' New Zealand, and in all likelihood would not return. The animals, it was stated, wore still at the, Wellington Zoo, imd 1 one of them—a leopard —had died.

Mr. O'Leary, in reply to His Honour, said that the City authorities, under instructions from his client, through him, were prepared to deliver up the animals to the plaintiff at any time. Ho further stated that «übsoquent to a business arrangement between the parties the animals wore left in the Zoo in 1913, and in the following year tlio defendant, who was responsible for leaving them there, wrote to the town..clerk, stating that tlio animals.' belonged'.: to' Baker. .. Although Baker could have secured possession, of the animals at any time after that dato lie had never made an application for their delivery. i. Mr. Jackson: That is not so. ... '. After furtlior argument, on the suggestion of His Honour, Mr. O'Leary made application for an order to have the evidence of the defendant taken at Auckland. This order was made, and the caso adjourned sino die. Costs of tlio day, £'2 25., were allowed to tho plaintiff. '