SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4028, 24 January 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Saturday, January 22. (Before Mr. Justice Williams.) BREACH Of PROMISE CASEHughes v. Shand was an action for L3,oi C for breach of promise of marriage. Mr Smith, with him Mr f-inclair, for the plaintiff, Caroline Mason Hughes; Mr G. E. Barton, with him Mr Stout, for the defendant, James Shand. After addresses by counsel. His Honor, in summing up, asked the jury to put •■vay any feelings which might previously have been in their breasts. The real fact which they had to determine was whether a contract had been entered lUt u°l Uot- They should consider that question with the same feelings as if the plaintiff and defendant were uninterested male parties, and the dispute about the sale of goods. In order to justify the jury in finding for the plaintiff, they must not . Relieve that her ev dence was true, but also . that there was sufficient material evidence apart from it to corroborate her statement. His Honor tneu proceeded to review the evidence at considerable length. Defendant's explanation of the “ old place ” was not satisfactory to his mind, and hj • did not know whether it would be to that of the jury. In regard to damages, there was no well-defined rule laid down in actions of this kind as to what the measure of them should be. The principle was this, that, when the plaintiff succeeded, to give damages for the loss of the match; and these damages would naturally vary according to the wo -Ith and position of the defendant. They would also give her damages for the injury done to her feelings—not exaggerated damages, but what was termed in th > books temperate damages. As to Mr Shand's position, the jury should be careful not to act upon anything they hud hoard apart from the evidence. No specific testimony had been given of the defendant's circumstances. The evidence only went to show that Mr Shind was a substantial farmer; therefore, if they came to the conclusion that the promise was made and broken, they would view the damages in that light. The jury, after being absent over two hours from Court, returned a verdict for the plaintiff on all the »siue3, and awarded her damages L 750, IN BANKRUPTCY. Monday, January 24. . Petitions for A audio .tion. —The following were adjudicated bankrupts, first meetings of creditors to be held on February IWilliam Rendle (for whom Mr E. Cook appeared); Peter Young (Mr Harris, junr.) ; Edward Christopher George (Mr Mowatt, for Mr M'Keay); Edward Thomas Wing (Mr E. Cook); John Gardner (Mr E. Cook) ; Edward CosteHo (Mi- A. Bathgate); Richard St atford (Mr Harris, junr.); George Bettridge ; Bennett •'ames Lowiy (Mr Mowatt); Joseph Greenwood Gardner (Mr Mowatt): and Henry Parker (Mr E. Hay). Execution of Deed?.— Complete execution of deeds was declared in the following cases : John M‘Donald (Mr C. Kettle) ; Charles Vincent Brewer (Mr Kettle); Alexander M‘Duff (Mr Mowatt); and Samuel Leeson (Mr Sin/vr* r )’i r^e case Pi c^ar d Montague Pavne (Mr E. Cook) was adjourned till next sitting day.

Adjourned Final Examinations. — f- dwarcl Towsey, through Mr t . Cook, applied for a further adj ourmnent as arrangements were being made for the payment of the creditors in full. Granted.—James Hearn Cleghom and John Thompson (Mr B. Cook): Mr Mowatt examined Cleghoni on behalf of opposing creditors. It appeared that bankrupts started hawking soft goods with a capital of 1,20 and were in business only three nr four months before going insolvent. The takings averaged from Ll2O to LIBO per month, but the two partners disagreed as to the actual tak-ngs. Cleghom said Thompson took ca' e of the money, and though they had talked about the discrepancy it was never rectified. No books were kept. The expenses amounted to Id 36 for the time they were travelling. By Mr Cook; A trap and two horses were paid for out of their takings. The last month the business done amounted to only ESJ, but that was in consequence of the horses being lamed and unable to travel. His Honor said lie would have suspended bankrupts’ discharges for a month or two for not keeping accounts, but for the fact that their case had been dragging on for some months, which was vimally a suspension. Filial orders granted.— Henry James Bacon (Mr E. Cook): Mr Stout examined bankrupt on behalf of the trustee in bankruptcy. Bacon said he had been insolvent once before, three years ago. In 1875, he went into business with a capital of L 320. His machinery cost him L3lO, and besides this there was stock in the place. He received L 137 from Messrs Gibbs and Clayton for the whole stock and machinery about August 14, who took possession of them. On September 9 he tiled his schedule. He sold the stock to them in order that with the money he might wtart a company and redeem his property. It was a sale and not a sale—he gave up possession, but was to get the stock and machinery back when he could. After selling to Gibbs and Clayton he worked for them, collecting accounts and orders on commissioa. By Mr - ook : Messrs Gibbs and Clayton were pressing witness for rent owing. Evidence was given by Mr Gibbs to the effect that bankrupt was to get the property back on redeeming it. His firm had always been and were still willin'* to hand it over to the creditors on the latter paying tile firm L 137, and taking up the lease.] Mr btout submitted that it was a clear case for a suspension of certificate, as bankrupt had handed over his property to one creditor without pressure. His Honor said bankrupt had clearly given Gibbs and i layton undue preference over the other creditors, am 1 it must also be taken into consideration that he had previously sought the protection of the Court - a thing that must always tell against a man. Bacon s certificate would be suspended for twelve months.—ln the case of Benedick Gopperth (Mr E, Cook), a final order of discharge was granted.—James Hartstonge’s (Mr Stout) application was adj- urned till next \ ’ as , a i so were James Ward Cotton’s (Mr Stout), and George Oswald Clayton’s (Mr E. 1,00k.)-Tn James FiederFk Bassett’s (Mr K Book) the trustee s report stated that bankrupt haigjven ivay to drinkanci could give no account of bis affairs. iiis discharge was, however granted, as the case had been pendin' l ' a Ion" time. °

I 1 Inal Examinations —Final orders were granted to Eheuezcr Steele (Mr Lewis), John Stewart Fulton (Mr Lewis), and Lawrence Bennett Salmon (Mr E. Cook);—Alex. Souttcr’s case (Mr Strmtl was adjourned till next sitting day. -In that of James Smith (Mr F. Chapman) Mr Haggitt examined bankrupt for opposing creditors. Bankrupt said ho commen cd buimwsg as a tailor m March last 1,, tlie I utting, but four months after moved to George street. He },ad property then worth Air.ora ojciimiiif.tioii Kanki'upt'i discharge was granted, but MrHaggitt obtain*! or I hi on banicrudfc’s premises at cue tune ot filing to be sold for the benefit of the creditors.