SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3712, 15 January 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, January 14. (Before flia Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.) Hay v. Hooo and Hutton and Another.— The jury, in this case, after consulting for about five hours, returned into Court with the following answers to the issues raised Was it the real object, meaning, and intent of the plaintiff and the defendants in the transaction or arrangement of the 12th January, 1874, in the declaration mentioned, that the receipt of that date should operate and be a security merely for the due retirement of the four bills ?—The receipt was given to secure payment by Hay of the four acceptances, and as a conditional sale of three years’ rent. Was the amount of the first of the four bills duly tendered by the plaintiff to the defendants af er it had been retired by them, and did defendants refuse to receive the amount so tendered ? —Yes

Dill the defendants assign as their reason for refusing to receive the amount so tendered that they were entitled to retain the leasehold premises held by them for a term of three years, in conscquen e of the default committed by the plaintiff in omitting to retire the first of the four bills?— Yes.

Did the defendants waive and dispense with the tender of the three bill, mentioned in the second plea by intimating and notifying to the plaintiff that they would nut receive the same even if and when tendered ? -There is no evidence to enable the jury to decide. Was it intended between the parties to the agreement of the 12th January, 1874, that the defendants should occupy the premises therein mentioned i or a term of three years ? —The intention of the parties was that Hogg and Hutton should have a five years’ lease from the Ist January, 1875, as express d in Hay’s letter to Gillies and Street of 20th February! 1874 Was the plaintiff the real owner of the premises in the occupation of defendants ? —There is no evidence to enable the jury to decide. If plain iff is not the own r, did he enterinto the agreement a d do the matters and things in the declaration alleged, as the agent of Henry Boniervi le ? Yes.

Was the transaction or arrangement of the 12th January, 1874, entered into merely for the personal convenience and ac onunodation of the plaintiff ?—The bills were given for the accommodation of the plaintiff.

Friday, January 15.

Macde V. I baser. —This was an action brought by Arthur rlay Maude, auctioneer and commission agent at Oamaru, against Robert Campbell Fraser, farmer and landowner at Otepopo. Plaintiff asserts that he was, in February last, joint purchaser with defendant of a crop of oats growing on the farm of one Hutchinson, a neighbor of defendant, and claims one-half of the profit accruing from the getting in and sale of the said oats. Mr J. iUacassey for plaintiff; Messrs J. Smith and O’Meagher for defendant. The evidence of Hutchinson, a d also of the plaintiff, was taken at great length to-day.