SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 80, 2 September 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Tuesday, September 1. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Gresson.] His Honor sat in the Court Chambers at 11 a.m. RE GOODS OE THOMAS DOWDLE, DECEASED. Mr Garrick applied for an order granting probate to Thomas Dowdle, jun., as son ot deceased. His Honor made the order, subject to an affidavit being filed as to interlineations in the will. BUCKRIDGE V. THE NEW ZEALAND SHIPPING COMPANY, This was an argument to show cause on the part of the plaintiff against a rule nisi obtained by defendant, calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the damages in the case should not be reduced to £SO, or why a new trial should not be granted, on the following grounds : 1. That the declaration was against the defendants as common carriers, and that the plaintiff is consequently not entitled to recover more than £SO ; and that the learned judge who tried the case misdirected the jury in refusing so to direct them. 2. That the learned judge having directed the jury that the evidence established that the defendants were common carriers, and that the only contract between the plaintiff and defendants was an implied one, arising from the delivery of the horse to the mate of the vessel, misdirected the jury in omitting to direct them that the plaintiff under the circumstances could not recover more than £SO. 3. That there being no allegation in the declaration of the plaintiff having declared the value-of the horse, and no proof of such fact, the learned Judge misdirected the jury in omitting to direct them that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover more than £SO. 4. That the verdict is against evidence and the weight of the evidence, inasmuch as it only establishes an implied contract to carry the horse in question by reason of the delivery thereof to the mate of the vessel, and that such contract could only be a contract by defendants as common carriers, limiting plaintiff’s right to recover to £SO. 5. That the evidence does not establish a contract by the defendants, inasmuch as it did not prove any authority by the mate of the vessel to receive the horse for carriage, so as to create an implied contract to carry. Mr Joynt appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, to show cause against the rule. Mr Garrick contra. After hearing argument at some length from counsel on both sides, his Honor reserved judgment.