SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3101, 27 January 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS,

This Day. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman.)

M‘ Com V. Low,-In f 3 action, plaintiff bought to F,epoyer L 2,000 damages for alleged false imprisonment ip August last, and LSOO special damages for loss ot trade in consequence. Mr James Smith, >vitb Mr Wilson appearecl for plaintiff, anil Mr Barton, witn Mr Haggitt, for defendant. . .lames Smith, shepherd, said that, in the early part of July, he searche t the date and paddocks about Bla ks, but found no sheep, on the ranges, there wi-re sheep at that time with Glassford’s brand on them. The ranges formed a of Campbell and Low s

rim. On the 12th of August, he went to plaintiff’s slaughter-yard, and found 21 of the sheep, and some skins bearing Olassford’s brand. About this time, other of these sheep were on the flats, mixed with those belonging to the run. During the day of the e quiry into the charge against plaintiff, at Clyde, he heard plaintiff say, “ If I got out of this scrape, I will take good care 1 don’t get into another.—Cross-examined : Plaintiff did not say, “As soon as 1 am out of this row, 1 will make Mr Low pay for it.” John Colo Chappie, auctioneer, said ho remembered, some day in mid-winter, plaintiff going to defendant’s house. Plaintiff told him that he was going to see about some sheep that had broken out of a paddock at Blacks on to defendant’s run. After plaintiff returned from Low’s, witness met him an I enquired what ho had dona with the sheep. I'laintiff replied, “I have sole them ” Witness again asked if he had sold the whole of them, and plaintiff answered. “Do you think lam a fool?’ After the enquiry at Clyde, he met plaintiff at .Blacks and was asked why he did not tell the truth while giving his evidence. He replied that he did. laintiff then said, “ You did not. What a fool I would have been to take 2 j for them when I was getting 3s for the skins!” Witness then said, “You did not say anything of the kind.” When h3 met plaintiff after the sale of the sheep, nothing was said about the number sold. This concluded defendant’s case.

Counsel having addressed the jury, the learned Judge summed up at considerable length. The jury retired, and after an absence of an hour and a quarter brought in a verdict for plaintiff for L 770. The Court adjourned until ten o’clock tomorrow, when the special jury case of Hartley v. Smith will be taken