SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4022, 17 January 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, January 17. (Before Mr Justice Williams’and a Special Jury). Alexander Webb v. the National Bank of New Zealand. - An action to claim the auxn of L 7,000 damages. The gist of the declaration is as follows: —That on January 18, 1875, Alexander Anderson Hunter (of Milton, contractor), Maria Brady (of the Criterion Hotel, his wife), Alexander Jerusalem Smy the, and[Heruy Driver enteredinto a certain deed under which the two "last mentioned were to act as trustees. They however subsequently declined so to act. In April Mrs Hunter applied to the Supreme Court and the real and personal estate referred to in the deed was vested in plaintiff. On February 17, defendants broke and entered upon the land and the hotel and removed and carried away the stock-in-trade in it. By reason of this plaintiff had ever since been deprived of the premises and the profits of the business of the hotel, and the value of the premises and of the goodwill, has been lost to plaintiff. Defendants had converted to their own use and wrongfully deprived plaintiff of the use of his goods. On January 16,1874, a deed had been entered into between Mrs Hunter and defendants for the purpose of securing the payment to the latter’of the sum of L 1,249 13s 9d, due to them by Mrs Hunter. The declaration then went on to state that the breaking and entering upon plaintiff’s premises on 17th February was committed before any default on the part of plaintiff’ in payment of the monies expressed to be secured in the deed between the parties, and before any reasonable time had elapsed. After seizing the goods and chattels, defendants sold them at a very much smaller price than the plaintiff as trustee could otherwise have obtained for them. Plaintiff therefore sued defendants for L 7,000 damages—Ls,ooo for being deprived of the issues and profits that would have been derived from the possession of the hotel and premises, and on account of the loss of the said business and the goodwill thereof, and L 2,000 on the value of the goods and chattels mentioned, of which plaintiff had been deprived by reason of the grievances committed by defendants and for the injury done to the plaintiff thereby. The defence was that plaintiff owed defendants a certain sum of money, and that they were therefore justified in acting under a bill of sale beCVveen the parties.

Mr G. E. Barton, with him Mr Stout, appeared for plaintiff; Mr Smith, -with him Mr Taylor, for defendants.

Counsel for plaintiff opened the case, and as_ considerable legal argument ensued no evidence had been taken when we went to press. [Le'ft sitting.]