SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3711, 14 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, January 13. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) Hat v, Hogg and Hutton and Another. Mr Stewart, in opening the case for the defendants, said the object of the action was apparent. Hogg and Hutton having insti tnted proceedings against Somerville, who was supposed to be the real owner of the premises in Princes street, Hay, being on the spot, employed by Mr Macassey to take proceedings against Hogg and Hutton with the view of undermining their position in regard to Somervell, by withdrawing from them any rights they might have, and ejecting them from the premises.

James Hogg, one of the defendants, said his firm had been in occupation of their present premises since 1870. In 1873 Hay told witness the premises were his, although in Somervilles name ; that he had to pay LSOO to the Building Society', who held a mortgage over the property, and it would suit him tp pay the money, as the Society did not appear to understand the matter. This was a few days before witness signed the first series of bills. In July, 1873, witness was negotiating for a renewal of their lease, which terminated in 1871. A rental of L 7 was upon, and Hay gave therm a pwntfc to Bay how the tenancy ehohld hi. i

Ultimately five years was fixed, and he looked upon the thing as settled. When Hay first asked witness to sign the bills he was very reluctant to do so. Hay said he would be perfectly safe in doing so, as even if he had to pay the money so much in advance, there,would be plenty of margin between L6OO and tlTe amount of the rent. After consulting Hutton, witness told Hay he would accept the bills. Witness told Hay that he could not take the bills with his name only, but would require Somerville’s name also. Somerville’s name was then added. A month after accepting the bills—in February —Hay tol< I witness that he had received an offer of L 4,500 for the premises, and said he would not sell the property unless the purchaser agreed to give Hogg and Hutton their tenancy. On the day of the sale of the property to Herbert, Haynes, and Co , Hay came into witness’s place with apparently a new idea in his head. He proposed that after he went Home and obtained a fresh stock of goods, witness should allow him to go into one of the shops occupied by witness, which would be next Herbert, Haynes, and Co.’s shop. Witness told Hay that he could not consent to such a thing, as it looked too dirty for him to have anything to do with it. Hay then went away, but in the afternoon, after he had effected a sale of the property to Herbert, Haynes, and Co., he came back and showed witness a sale-note dated 24th February, which stated that the premises were handed over free and unencumbered. Witness said to him, “ You have attempted to sacrifice us,” and he then took steps to register the agreement of 12th January. Hay did not stop to have a conversation,- but walked out of the shop. Witness’s impression was that Hay was ashamed of what he had done. Hay told witness a day or two previously that he could get L2OO more for the property if he sold it without their leave. In all conversations about dealing with the property, Hay never mentioned Somerville’s name. Cross-examined : Witness intended to hold Hay to his agreement after he failed to retire the first bill; but if Hay had offered to retire the other three bills as well, witness would have been willing to accept his tenancy at the terms agreed upon. He did not want to take advantage of Hay on account of having to meet the bill. Witness was not helping Haynes against Hay. Witness believed his firm gave L 603 worth of bills for three years’ tenancy of their premises. He would have been ready at once to pay L 7 a week for the premises if a lease had been executed iu their favor.

R. Gillies, who had been employed by Herbert, Haynes and Co. to negotiate for the purchase of Hay’s building, said he understood Hay was the owner. Not a word was said about Somervil'e. The offers were L 4.000, L 4,500, and L 4.700. Hay said he could not sell the property clear, as Hogg and Hutton had a claim for three years’ occupancy, and a promise in honor for five years’ tenancy. Hay sometimes said they had a claim, and sometimes said they had no legal claim. Witness’s principal objected to that, and wanted to know what price was wanted for the property, clear of all encumbrance. Ultimately the property was sold to Haynes for L 4,700. Hay was to arrange with Hogg and Hutton, witness understanding that Hay was on such terms with them that he could do so.

Jas. Hutton, another of the defendants, said Hay had often told him he was the owner of the property. Hay, recalled at the request of the jury, stated he was in a position to meet the first bill when it fell due.

R. S. Allan, accountant to Hogg and Hutton, recollected having a conversation with Hay about January, 1874, in Hogg and Hutton’s office. Hay mentioned that, although the property was in Somerville’s name, it was virtually his ; that he (Hay) was paying off a mortgage held by the Building Societj’, and that as soon as it was paid off the property would be his. He said he intended to sell the property, as he fbought sheep-faiming would pay him better. Speaking of the property being held in Somervell’s name, Hay said it was necessary to do that sort of thing sometimes. On one occasion Hay told him that he would make it hot for Hogg and Hutton, J. B. Anderson, manager of the Bank of Australasia, stated that on March 14 last Hay’s account was overdrawn L4O odd. Since then it had been overdrawn L4OO or LSOO.

Thursday, January 14.

Hay v. Hooo and Hutton anp Another.— Mr Barton addressed the jury at great length, arguing that defendants signed the four hills of exchange for plaintiff’s accommodation, in consideration of the latter granting them three years’ tenure of the premi-es. The learned counsel also said the evidence showed that plaintiff, and not his father-in-law, Somerville, was the real owner of the property. Mr Macassey replied for the plaintiff, contending that the receipt for three years’ rent was given defendants as security for the bills, and that on plaintiff returning these bills the receipt was intended to be cancelled. His Honor summed up, and the jury retired at about four o’clock. A verdict had not been returned when we went to press.