YESTERDAY’S NEWS.

Evening Star, Issue 3098, 23 January 1873, Page 3

YESTERDAY’S NEWS.

SUPKEME COURT.

CIVIL SITTING’S,

( ’’efore his Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury )

Pritchard v. Packman.— This case has occupied the Court for the past nine days. It was an action for the wrongful conversion of three horses, valued at Ll5O, and detension of the same, for which plaintiff claimed LIOO damages The evidence has already been published. Mr James Smith, with Mr Stout, appeared for the plaintiff; and Mr Barton, with Mr i hapman, for the defendant. Counsel occupied the morning sitting of the Court in addressing the jury, and after the adjournment, IPs Honor Bummed up, directing that it would be first necessary to establish whether an unequivocal demand was made by plaintiff or plaintiff's agent,'and whether the de-i-mdai.t gave an unequivocal refusal. It was next pc pessary to establish whether th • plaintiff wua the owner of one or all of the horses. The ownership of one was enough to establish plaintiffs right to make the claim. Another e'ement to be established was whether Koddam was in a tit state of mind to, complete a business transaction such as thatih question. His Honor reviewed the evidence, pronouncing ‘th it there was pvhiK* J'iidc evidence of plaintiff having unequivocally claimed the property. The disposal of the second question would depend cm the establishment of the third. The evidence touching the question of price was conflicting, some of the witnesses being of opinion that the price paid was sufficient, while others believed that it >yaa not. With regard to the question of fitness to be a contracting party, it was clear that Eoddara was addicted to the uso of intoxicating liquois, that he nas subject to delusions, and other ind 1 - cations of delirium ; but at the same time it was shown that when not drinking he was free from delusions, and rational—that even when recovering fromtheefiectof drink he was rational, and that it was only when under the influence of dvink lie became delirious. There was one set of witnesses who stated that he was habitually drunk, and another set who said be was habitually sober. It would, therefore, be necessary for the jury to confine thems'lves to the statements of witnesses relative to the conduct of Bod dam a few days before and after the transaction. If a man indicated insanity a few days before and a few days after a given d(\tp, then it might he fairly assumed, thaf he was insane, and nnf't tq by a contracting party. Rut with a person suffering from heavy drinking it was different, and the evidence went to show that, on the day the transaction was completed, Jfoddam was sober and rational. Still, it would be necessary for the jury to consider whether ifoddam’s mind had been so impaired by drunkenness as to be in capable of conducting business, and, if they found that he was, and that the plaintiff was aware of (hat fact, and, also, that the sum paid to Ifoddam by p’aiiilitf was insufficient, then they would be prepared to substantiate the claim of the Curator of intestate Estates.

S’ome supplementary evidence was then put in, and the learned Judge re-charged the jury. The jury found a verdict to the following effect : That one of the horses was not the property of plaintiff, and that plaintiff’ be awai'ded L7<), or nominal damages in case the remaining two horses are retgrped. The Court then adjourned until ten o’clock to-morrow morning,