LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3137, 16 July 1917, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

FULL COURT

RESERVED JUDGMENTS

At a sitting o£ the Full Court on Saturday morning threo reserved: .iudgmentß wero delivered. On tlio Bench were the Chief Justico (Sir ltobert Stout], ILr. Justice Edwards, ilr. Justice Cooper, Mr. Justico Chapman, Mr. Justice Sim, and Mr. Justice Stringer. Foroman v. Jones. 'I'lio case of Tliomas Jones v. David William Foreman concerned an action lor alleged malicious prosecution, heard in May lißt, when a motion for a nonsuit, came before the Court. Foreman, a farnier, residing at Miki Miki, was accused of being the father of an illegitimate child born to his housekeeper in Ms house. This he strenuously denied, and after exhaustive inquiries camo to the conclusion that Jones was the father of the child. Ho laid :i complaint against Jones, alleging that ho had failed to provide maintenance for his illegitimate child. Tho case was fixed for hearing on December 15. but l)c----fore that dale tho mother of the child laid a complaint against Foreman, and this case "was also set down for December 15. On tho date in question tbc parties attended before the Magistrate, and Foreman, through his solicitor, withdrew his complaint, because- all the facts ho -wished to bo brought out would be brought out in tho hearing of the girl's information. The Magistrate adjudged Foreman to Do tho father of the child, and Foreman at once gave notice of appeal. Jones early this year issued a. writ in the Supremo Court in tho Supromc Court in an action against Foreman claiming damages (£42 legal expenses, and £2WO damages) for malicious prosecution. The jury found averdict for plaintiff lor £750 general damages, and £21 special damagos. A motion for a nonsuit, boforo tlio Full Court then followed upon the grounds that tho statement of claim disclosed no cause Of action, and that there was no evidence of damage requisite to maintain the action; in the alternative, judgment, for defendant upon the same grounds, or for o- now trial on the grounds that tho verdict, was against the weight of evidence, and that tun damages were cxccFsive. The Chief Justice read tho judgment, of the Court, which was in favour of Jones, who was also awarded costs. At the henrinir Messrs. T. If. TVilford. TV Lori, and V. J. .Ilollinirs. of Alasiorton, appeared fnr Jouo?. and Mr. A. firay, K.C., with him Mr. H. C. Itobinson, of Masterton, for Foreman. York Street Barricade. In this case, which came before Mr. Justice Hosking about a year ago, and was held over for tho Full Court, -was heard about a, fortnight ago. The fustian was brought by tho Wellington City Corporation against A. and T. Hurt for alleged misuse of part of York .Street, a lillnrt street running eastward off Taranaki Street to Town Acre 246. The corporation contended that the. defendant company, prior to Uoccraber 21, 15H, erected a liarricade about balf-way down York ■Street, and enclosed the part of the street lying to the east of the barricade, incorporating Buch part of the street wltn lands owned by the company on beth sides. Defendants declined to accode to the request of tho corporation to removo tho barricade (a fenco .with a gate in it), and continued to use the part enclosed for thu purpose of storing iron pipes and other material.. The corporation (herelore asked the Court, to declare that lorU Street is. for its full length, a, "street , as donned in tho Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, and to enjoin upon tho company the removal of the hareieano. Tho company claimed that tho piece of land enclosed was not any part of a "street" as defined in the Act, and also that no part of tho said piece of land win invested in tho corporation for any estate. Tho erection of the fenco was admitted, but it was contended that the company, being tho registered proprietor of Section 2A6. had erected the barricade on tho western boundary of the section, and that the land enclosed was included In the certificate of titlo to the section owned by tho company in the fee simple. The decision of the Court, which was read by the Chief Justice, was to the effect that there was no cvidenno to .sliow that the street had been dedicated, although it had always been used as a public highway. Judgment was given for tho defendant company. At the hearing Mr. John O'Shca (City Solicitor) appeared for vke corporation, and Jlr. A. 8. Adorns, of TJunedjn. wlui him Mr. l>. M. Findlay, of Wellington, for the defendant company.' Transactions In Lambs. In this case the plaintiffs were lticharil! Farley and James Farley, o£ Wanganul, farmers, and the defendant Charles Albert Loughuan, solicitor, of Palmcrston North. The statement of claim set out that in October, 1916, an agreement was entered into for the sale of all plaintiffs lambs (shorn) Irora 4020 ewes depasturing t>n their station at Hunterville, tho plaintiffs' J (or vendors) reserving the right to take | out 350 of the best ewe lambs, at the price of 14s. each. The plaintiffs also j agreed to allow the purchaser to reject 5 per cent, of tho lambs yarded. There wore other details in tho agreement to | purchase, which was ostensibly n.ade between the plaintiffs and Johnston and Davis, of Palmerston 'North, but the plaintiffs claimed that although not mentioned in the agreement, the defendant was as a matter of faof the purchaser from the plaintiffs under such agreement. Plaintiffs claim that they wero ready and willing to deliver the lambs, but the defendant refused to accept delivery, and therefore plaintiffs claimed £530 damages. The defence was that it was an express term of the agreement that tho lambs should be shorn, and an expressed or implied term of tho agreement that the lambs should be docked, but at the time tho plaintiffs offered delivery a large number of the lambs were unshorn and not docked. Defendant thereupon claimed that ho was entitled to refuse the delivery of tho lambs. Further, he counter-claimed for £540 damages, as he had arrant'efl to buy the lambs at 14a. per head, and that at the time for the completion of the agreement the lambs, il properly.shorn and docked and tended by the- plaintiffs, would liavo been worth at least 17e. per Mr." Justice Sim rcaa tho judgment, of. tho Court, which was given in favour of the defendant with costs, and on the counter-claim nominal damages (£1) were awarded, as agreed by defendant s counsel. At the hearing Mr. C. C. Hutton, of Wauganui, appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. Harold H. Cooper, of l J almer3ton North, for the defendants.