SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2350, 13 October 1870, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Tuts Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman and a Special ' Jury,) ANDERSQN AND ANOTHER V. BURKE AND ANOTHER. The trial of this case was resumed. Mjr J. B. Mudic was called, his examination lastiu" nearly the whole day. Me said that the original agreement was that Anderson and Mowatt "should buy in and around Dunedin, the Taieri, and Tokomairiro, because they were better acquainted with farmers. There was no restriction upon any one else buying. The Oamaru purchases of oats by witness’ firm were made with the consent of Anderson and Burke, and by their instruction-!. Never heard of the termination of the agreement; nor did he know that it had ever been terminated. Was acquainted with the Christchurch purchases on the arrival of the invoices, and assented to them. Turnbull’s purchase was made at witness’ suggestion, and by direction of Burke and Anderson. Witness agreed to the purchases from Wright, Robertson and Co., Lorcii/en <ivkl others, not ut tlie time* out a few days afterwards. Anderson was acquainted with them, for it was he who informed witness of some of them, He appeared dissatisfied with Air Burkes purchases in Dunedin, as they were likely to raise tlje market, and had a tendency to injure the speculating. He did not say he would not acknowledge Lorcnzen’s purchase until a long time afterwards. Witness agreed to all the and was acquaiu-

ted with the various shipments as they were made, but not with the sales. There were about 160,000 bushels less Wright Bobcrtsou’s purchase, purchased with witness’s cement. All the rest were purchased wi hj the assent of the three parties. Anderson never repudiated any of the Dunedin purchases : he merely expressed dissatisfaction with Burke’s line of policy. Witness investigated the accounts, and found L 35,000 had been expended in the purchase of grant, but the transactions involved an expenditure of L 50,000. In the accounts there wa. no entry of the sale and resale at Waikouaiti, and witness never heard of it until about two or three months ago. Never consented to the purchase or resale. One of tlie accounts produced was made out by witness, and was the result of his investigation of the accounts. [lt was in elFect this : Pr-snming that Anderson paid half of the L 5,000 bill, th re would be duo to him half the oats in hand—say, L‘2500, half Bright Bros’, account, ah nt L‘2ooll, cash to the amount of L27000r L2BOO, or a total of L 4700.] The balance of the oats in the hands of Bright Bros, belonged to the joint venture; and corroborated Mr Burke’s evidence as to the L3UOO bill transaction. In cross-exami-nation he admitted that in April he received a telegram from Mr Royse, objecting to the purchafss, and his firm’s connection with the venture. Notwithstanding he assented to purchases about that time, because the other pa. tilers in the speculation thought differed ly from Royse. Mr Mudie’s examination was concluded, and the Court rose.