LAW INTELLIGENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 3068, 18 December 1872, Page 2

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

SUPREME COUHT—Iff Banco

Ncttbr v. PiyTCHAKD. - Mr Macapsey moved for It Hew fy' jilj Uci'tejUi on Ahc ground that the finding of the Jury on the fourth issue— “ Was the said sum paid to the late John Rod dam, and if so, how ? L‘2oo by unmarked cheque, and L2OO in cash’’—was against the evidence ; and that in respect of the tenth issue- “Had the defendant at the time of the said sale any knowledge that the said John Roddam was drunk or insane? No”- -there had been misdirection on the part of the learned judge, inasmuch as, in reply to a question by the foreman of jury, his Honor directed that they were bound to find an answer in the affirmative or negative ximpliciter. Mr Macassey, in the course of his argument, said that, by the fourth issue as it stood, the verdict was practically fruitless, as the difference between the value of the property purchased by Pritchard, and the purchase-money, was only LSO; sd that:., qaestmn arose irrespective of the tenth issue; 1 The rule w;;;, granted. GvU.un v. CamiAklL. Mi IS. Cook, pursuant to leave given at the trial, moved fur a rule ■nlm’ to enter a nonsuit on the ground - that at the time of action brought, the lessor’s interest had terminated; and alternatively for assent of judgment,on the grown! .that the declaration disclosed no cause of action. R-rJe granted. Clayton v. Morris.— Mr Barton appped for a rule »ixi to amend the issues by adopting certain issues proposed by the defendant instead of those by the plaintiff. His honor directed the matter to be taken in chambers. _ Re Dunedin Gab Company.— This was a formal application by Mr Barton, for the official liquidator, and Mr Cook for the owner of the works. In October last bis Honor made an ore.c_ for certain shares to be transferred to the in Mr Hankey’s name. It now turned out tliatbmr of .ihcf.e shares had been bought twice, and the 'discovery was made by the official liquidator in this way. Certain shares were forfeited through iion-paymelit qf calk, or for other reasons, and ih<?BC shares were afterwards re-allotted to other people, Mr Hankey s agent here purchased as many of them a.s lie could get, and again purchased them from their row owners. The object of the application, to obtain the Court’s sanction to one transfer being considered si.di.cie.ut, the order as prayed foi was granted. [Left sitting.j

ITow much cloth id required to wake a spirit- r

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day.

(Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases.

Mill and Co. v. Adam.—Adjourned by consent until Friday.

Pritchard v. Thompson.- Claim L 5 os. fee for use «f entire horse. Mr Howorth appeared for defendant, disputed the claim, and stated that it was understood that the charge should be £'2.— Plaintiff said ho entered into no special agreement with regard to the charge, but understood that defendant would pay the advertised fee. On two previous occasions ho had allowed defendant, under cert'in circumstances, the use of the horse for L2.--Jeffrey Williams said he had an interest in the horse, and travelled with him. After defendant had usd the horse, he signed the book produced, fixing his responsibility for the amount claimed. He was not aware that any special arrangement had been mule between plaintiff and defendant.—Defendant said that on two previous years he paid L2 to plaintiff for use of horse, and it was not understood that that sum would be increased. Roberts said he had tendered plaintiff LI 2s 6d, with slip giving credit for 17* 6d, balance of contra account, but plaintiff refused to accept it,—His Worship held it was clear that no arrangement had beeu made whereby defendant should pay more than on previous occasions, and that since the money had been tendered, he would give judgment for defendant, with costs. Maine v. Dorsett. - Claim L2 16s, for work and labor done. Defendant said that the contract on which plaintiff had worked had passed over to another party, owing to his having become insolvent. Plaintiff was granted a certificate for the amount under the Contractors’ Debt Act.