CLDYE DISTRICT COURT.

Dunstan Times, Issue 553, 22 November 1872, Page 2

CLDYE DISTRICT COURT.

Monday Nov, 18 1872. (Before Wi son Gray, Esq., Judge) Mace v Cotter.-Mr. W. W. Wilson for Plaintiff, and Mr. F. J. Wilson for the Defendant, Before opening the case, Defendant’s counsel took a preliminary abjection that the summons not bearing any date as required by Rules 41 and 50 there had been no proper suit commenced, and he submitted that the Summons must bo dismissed. Mr W. W. Wilson argued at considerable length tothe contrary, but his Honor stated that with great reluctance ho was obliged to hold that-the objection was fatal, and the case was dismissed. Plaintiff’s counsel stating that he would commence proceedings afresh. Perriam vM'Morran.—Mr, F. J. Wilson for Plaintiff, and Mr. W. W. 'Wilson, for Defendant. This was an action to recover the balance of principal and itcrest on a Bill of Exchan "e of which defendant. The defendant was the acceptor in a set off for aslightly larger amount put for sheep sold and delivered. The contest between the parties was, who was the real vendor of the sheep. It appeared that in the middle of June 1870, Defendant and Plaintiff settled their sheep account to that date. Plaintiff alleged that he then gave verbal notice todefendant that he would havenomore sheep after that month, and that ho then made arrangements with Mr. 1. Longhnan to supply him at a lower price per head. Mr. Longhnan was called to prove that Defendant had at that,timernadea'somewbat similar .statement to him, adding that he did not care about serving Plaintiff (any longer. Defendant on the contrary denied the Plaintiff’s version, but would not deny Mr. Loughnan’a statement, but said he did not remember any such conversation. He produced Ids pocket account book, containing entries of the sheep having been deliver ed by Inm at the time mentioned the set off, and swore that he had deliver ca them

personally on eaclr occassion but one. Mr Loughnan on cross-ex-aminatiou produced the Station ledger, by which it appeared that till a later date than the last delivery he was really liable, and in doubt who was that Plaintiff had paid him in September, 1870. i His Honor said it was a case in which the evidence was so evenly balanced, that very trifling circumstances would turn the scale and looking at the fact that Defendant, had spoken to Loughn in to the same effect as deposed by the Plaintiff, and further that he had a settlement with Louhnan in August 1870, and from that time to this he had not asked for any account, 6r appeared to have done any act recognising his liability, and that this -was over two years ago, in itself an unreasonably long period, he felt bound to give judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, at the same time he thought it was a case emphatically for trial by a jury, and that different men might come to different conclusions on the matter. Ho thought as he'gave judgment for the whole amount of interest, set should not press for costs Plaintiff assented. Judgment for Plaintiff in amount claimed, without costs.

Of the remaining three cases, two it was stated had been settled out of court, and the third, the summons had not been served in time for tips sitting.