SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3014, 16 October 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

NISI PRTUS SITTINGS

Tins Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman. )

AVIKKS Y. I’imVHA.RH. Mr Macassoy, with whom was Mr F. R. Chapman, for the plaintiff, William Aitken ; and Mr James Smith, with whom was Mr ''tout, for the defendant, Edward Pritchard. The damages are claimed at LoDO. The case for the plaintiff, as stated by Mr Macassey, was in effect as follows The circumstances of the case date from Saturday, June 1. At that time the plaintiff was in the employ of the late John lloddam, who was the proprietor of two teams and a number of horses. On that day Aitkeu was on the point of starting for Naseby with a load of merchandise, and it was important to observe that on that day Pritchard saw him in charge of his team, but bad no conversation with him. Of the nine horses in the team driven by Aitkeu, two did not belong to Roddam. On the following Friday, June 7, Aitkeu had got as far as Pigroot, and on the afternoon of that day, Pritchard, who was accompanied by a man named Haynes, who figured prominently in the subsequent proceedings, and a bailiff named Brown, drove up. A conversation of a remarkable and significant character, took

place between Pritchard and Aitken. Pritchard spoke first, and said, “ You will be surprised to see me here.” Aitken replied, “No, I have seen you here before.” Pritchard : “I have come to take possession of Roddam’s property, which I have purchased from him.” Aitken : “Now, you do surprise mo.” The subject was enlarged upon, and subsequently Pritchard told Aitken that ou May 31, the day before Aitken left Dunedin, ha ha I purchased from Roddam the team driven by Aitken and the other belonging to him (Roddam). Aitken at once said, “ Why did you not tell me of this purchase when you saw me in Dunedin on June I.” Pritchard’s reply was “The contract had not then been completed.” Iho bill of sale was produced, whereupon Aitken said “ 1 can’t recognise this as an order for delivery.” Some further conversation took place, during which Pritchard admitted that he knew Roddam was considerably indebted to Aitlo n ; but when they separated Pritchard did not know* whether Aitken was prepared to give up possession or not. On the following day Aitken decided to hand ovi-r his waybill to Pritchard, and in doing so intimated his intention of going to Dunedin to see Roddam, at the same time telling Pritchard that some of the horses in the team did not belong to Roddam, and askinu him to take care of them. Ln the course of further conversation, during which Haynes was present, Pritchard said to the latter “ If you cannot get on without the other horses, wait till Aitkeu comes up from town.” Now Pritchard was at this time cognisant of the fact of Roddam having left the Colony, which he did not tell Aitken, who learned it on his arrival in Dunedin on June 8, and that Roddam had sailed in the Rangitoto for Melbourne without settling his creditors’ claims. On Juoe 9, Roddam committed suicide on hoard the steamer, while she was at the Bluff, and on the following day the announcement of his death appeared in both of the Dunedin papers-a circumstance that was well known t > Pritchard, as would appear hereafter. On the arrival of Aitkm in town he conferred with some of Roddam’s creditors, and the result was that Messrs Macassey and Holmes, acting for them, wrote ou the 11th to Pritchard informing him that the creditors pro posed taking proceedings against him for the purpose of setting aside the deed made by Roddam in his favor, on the ground that at the time of making it, he was not legally competent to bind himself, and cautioning him against parting with any of the horses. On June 10, it Wilß plain he knew of the creditors’ intention to attempt to impeach the transaction, yet on that day he telegraphed to Haynes that an attempt would be made to obtain possession of the property by force, and commanding him to resist that attempt by force also. Aitken, acting under instructions from the creditors, proceeded to Pigroot, and a couple of miles this side of Naseby took possession of the team, and drove it into Naseby, placing, in the stables of one Packman, one of the horses which belonged to himself, and the others iu Horsewell’s stables. Haynes was thoroughly aware of Aitken s pioce'dings, for he informed Pritchard of them by telegraph, and there was no attempt at concealment. On June 12, Haynes preferred an information before Mr H. W. Robinson, R.M., Naseby, charging Aitken with stealing the horses. On the part of the plaintiff it would bo contended that Pritchard was the instigator of the criminal proceedings, as would appear by a number of t-.-lcgrams that would be put in evidence On June 12, Haynes telegraphed to Pritchard, informing him of the seizure of tbe horses by Aitken, ami asking to know what he was to do; whereupon Pritchard on the following day telegraphed back to Haynes that he was to <nve the person who took in charge. On the 14th, Haynes telegraphed back that Aitken had been arrested for taking the horses from him, which was the only way of securing them ; and Pritchard replied “You have done right; messenger on tbe road with instructions and deed of sale to produce before the magistrate, also writs to servo, notwithstanding the arrest.” Aitken was dragged out" of his bed between midnight and 2 a. m. ou the 14th, and looked up until bo obtained bail- At the trial. Pritchard, who had retained Mr Rowlatt, the only legal practitioner iu Naseby, and brought up Mr Stout with him, pressed lor a commitment; but, although only two witnesses were called by Aitken to prove the State of Roddam’s mind at the time he executed the bill of sale, the magistrate dismissed the information, he being of opinion that Aitken had simply acted iu the exercise of a supposed right, and without any felonious intent. If the case rested on those facts alone, there could not be a shadow of doubt that the proceedings taken by Pritchad against Aitken were taken “wrongfully, maliciously, and recklessly.” But he (Mr Macassey)intended to invite the jury’s attention to circumstances of a peculiarly strange character, which it would be contended clearly showed that Pritchard’s object was to stifle enquiry into his own claim to the property. Roddam was a carrier, but for months previous to his death had not been engaged in driving his teams. Aitken drove one, and one Carmichael the ether. For months he had lived iu town, aud up till the night of June 0 slept at the White Horse Hotel. But that evening he did not sleep there ; but was secreted iu tbe premises of Mr IScott, of the Royal George Stables. At midnight on that day, or at all events before two o’clock the next morning, Pritchard went to the watchman on Bell Tower, and told him to Ire sure and rouse early Mr Joseph Mills—who appeared to ba always called on upon delicate matters —whom he required to go to Port Chalmers on particular business. But Mr Mills was before tbe watchman ; and hours before daybreak gut a buggy, wont to the Royal George Stables, put Roddam into it, and drove him down to Port Chalmers. It was not even daybreak when they arrived. A strange and suspicious circumstance was that Roddam was secreted at Port Chalmers, and was not seen from the time he arrived there till he was put on board the Raugitoto. Roddam started on the afternoon of June i ; Pritchard remained in town till that moment, although his bill of silo was executed on May 31. Why did he wait until Roddam went away before asserting his rights ? Aitken saw him in June I, yet he said nothing on the subject of his purchase. But the moment the unfortunate Roddam was on board the Raugitoto—the moment he was perfectly sure that his own arrangements were complete and would not miscarry, off he started for Pigroot to take possession. The jury, as business men, knew that if a bill of sale remained unregistered, and the grantor gave a second security of his property, the prior security was of no possible value. Why then was the bill of sale, executed ou May 3), not registered til) June 15? Was

not the object to keep the transaction completely in the dark, bo that Roddam s creditors should not have the chsnce of securing the property. His lawyers (Messrs Stout and Sievwright) dared not take upon themselves the responsibility of delaying the registration ; therefore, it was to be assumed that in doing so, they acted under his instructions. But there we e other circumstances which were peculiar, Pritchard’s, bill of sale recited that the consideration to Roddam was L 450. An affidavit had been made by Mr Reid, Mr Stout’s clerk, that the deed was executed by Roddam on May 31 ; but it would be shown on the evidence of Mr Nasmith, of the Bank of New South Wales, that on June 4, four days afterwards, Pritchard asked for a draft payable to Roddam for L3OO, and drew a cheque jor L3oo. Roddam received a draft for L 297 the L3OD, less exchange-on June a day before he left for Melbourne, Nasmith would also prove that the whole of the transaction with the Bank was conducted by Pritchard, and that Roddam bad nothing to do with it. It would be further proved by medical and other testimony, that on the day Roddam executed the deed, he was suffering from delirium tremens ; that he was in Court’s Otago Hotel that afternoon, and showed unmistakeably his deranged mental condition—which fact it would be contended was known to Pritchard, in whose company he was. If the facts that had been narrated were proved, the only question for the jury would be to assess damages ; and he called upon them to give substantial damages. (Left sitting.)