SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2936, 17 July 1872, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Yesterday. (Before Mr Justice Chaprnau.) His Honor took his seat on the Bench at ten o’clock. Mr Macassey, in addressing the jury for the defence, characterised the action as an ill-advised proceeding, and pointed out that under any circumstances plaintiff’s right to dispose of the land could have been established by the expenditure of the paltry sura of 18s. Again, if the jury should believe Eddie’s evidence, they would say there was no ground of complaint against defendant, but against France, if at all, the deeds, so it was alleged, having been handed over to plaintiff. Having addressed the jury at greater length, Mr Macassey called John Cuddy, deputy-registrar, and James Anderson, solicitor, who gave evidence as to the expense necessary to re-establish consequent on the loss of the deeds—plaintiff’s right to dispose of the land. His Honor, in summing up, said the real question for the jury was which of the two versions of the story put forward they believed. MTlroy’a account was, that, having had certain dealings with Bee, and thinking he was likely to find him a purchaser for his section, he asked him to endeavor to get him one, which Bee promised to do. Accordingly MTlroy took his title deeds to Bee, and delivered them to him. There could be no doubt that MTlroy had so delivered them, or that, up to the time of the action brought, he had the right to demand possession of them, no matter where found. How the deeds got into France’s hands was the question the jury had to try ; there was no evidence as to the exact time, circumstance, or place under which that delivery took place, or as to by whom they were placed in France’s hands. But there were two or three possible ways suggested. First of all it might have been when the transaction took place, referred to in the evidence of Eddie, when the deeds were passed across Bee’s counter, and placed in MTlroy’s hands. If, therefore, the jury believed Eddie’s evidence, the defendant would be entitled to a verdict. If they were satisfied that the deeds wore taken out of Bee’s hands and placid in those of MTlroy, it was of very little consequence how they got into Franc ’’s. Bee, with MTlroy’s consent, might have handed them over to France to obtain a p uchaser, and so divested himself of all ic-iponsibility. There was another suggestion, thoug'-i an improbable one, that inasmuch as MTlroy had been in the scrub all night, and having the deeds in his possession, they might have been tumbled out of his pocket, and being picked up found their way into FianceVpossession. But that was a conflicting evidence which w r as not likely to take place There was Eddie’s evidence of having seen M Tlroy 24 hours after the transaction over the shop counter somewhat the worse for liquor ; and it was possible that he had deposited the deeds and forgotten all about it. His direction was that if the jury believed Eddie’s evidence their verdict should be for the defendant; but if on tbe other hand they preferred to give effect to the evidence of MTlroy their verdict would be for the plaintiff on the second count, damages one shilling. The jury retired shortly after twelve o’clock, and were absent till nearly two, when it was intimated that eleven of their number had agreed. His Honor said that by the Aot of last year he could take a verdict of a majority of a jury, after they had been locked up six hours ; but there was nothing to prevent counsel accepting a verdict of a majority before that time. Mr Macassey having intimated that counsel had agreed to accept the verdict of the majority, the jury were brought in and answered the issues as follows Did the defendant detain and docs he still detain the title deeds, the property of the plaintiff? Yes.—What damages is plaintiff entitled to recover by reason of such detention. One shilling. 1 BREACH OF PROMISE. Ellen Brown v. David J. Peter was an action to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage. The action was undefended. Mr Harris, who appeared for the plaintiff, said his client was a young woman twentytwo years of age, and the daughter of a respectable farmer in the old country. Defendant w r as lately in the employ of tie Messrs Maclean, of Bellamy Station, having been their principal stockman. Miss Brown arrived in the Colony in August last, and went to live with her brother-in-law, who is principal overseer on the station. It was there that the intimacy, out of which the promise to marry sprang, between the parties arose. The promise and the breach of it were admitted ; so that the jury had simply to determine what measure of damage the plaintiff was entitled to. The evidence as to the defendant’s means was very meagre. He was twenty-three years of age, and for three or four years he received about LSO a year and found. Mr James Scott, livery stable keeper, was briefly examined. His Honor, addressing the jury, said unfortunately there was very little evidence as to the defendant’s circumstances ; what there was showed them to be of a very humble character. He was working for wages; some two or three years ago had expected to receive L3O or L4O from a relative in Victoria, and had a horse which ho sold for Lls. Under such circumstances, although the law directed that an injury of the kind was to be compensated by damages, the verdict should not bring ruin upon the defendant; the damages should be suited to the parties’ circumstances. The jury would lay their heads together, and say how much they would give to the young woman. The jury, after a short retirement, found for the plaintiff—damages L4O.