SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 652, 21 July 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

Thursday, July 20, (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and

a Special Jury.) TURNER AND OTHERS V WILSON AND MONK.

Cross-examination of Win, Wilson continued —Notwithstanding the indistinctness of my recollection on 'other subjects I have a distinct recollection of the proportion of seeds sent to Turner’s run. I recollect this because there are mixtures kept by us in stock known as second-class mixtures. This is why I recollect the proportion, for no special reason otherwise. I gave orders as to the mixture and the seed was mixed on my premises. The standard of meadow fescue (Yorkshire fog) is from eight to twelve pounds per bushel ; rye grass is twenty, just as wheat is sixty, pounds. The seed produced is a mixture of meadow fescue _ and cocksfoot; a good deal of cocksfoot is in it. Meadow fescue seed is very light, and runs from eight to fourteen pounds to the bushel. It is not half the weight of rye grass seed. The grass seed was sent up by the bushel, and it would run about twenty pounds to the bushel. About five dray loads were sent to the run. Seven dray loads I now believe went altogether on the freehold and run. With Fantham’s farm it would be I think six dray loads, The road was bad and two horses would be required to draw a ton or a ton and a half. I cannot say how much per load would be taken. It would altogether depend upon the state of the roads and weather, I think two tons or two tons and a half would be taken. I think the mean average weight of the seeds would be twenty pounds per bushel. The amount of grass seed, according to the entries, shows that eighteen and nearly a half tons of grass seed were sent to the run. It does not surprise me to find that the weight of the seed totted up comes to so large an amount, Mr Garrick—Would anything surprise you Mr Wilson ?

Witness—Well, yes, it would surprise me to find you courteous, for instance. Examination continued—l am not surprised at the amount being eighteen tons and a half, considering the large acreage it had to go over. Some grass seed went to Fantham’s land. It was charged to Turner’s estate, and was given to Fantham under peculiar circumstances. I gave the seed to him: A flood in the Waimakariri came up, and swept Mr Fantham’s crops away. He came to me and told me he wanted to give up the lease, as the section was open to flood, I did not wish to lose so good a tenant, and asked him if I could do anything for him. He said that if he could lay it down to grass by seed supplied from tbe estate he would remain. I consulted with Mrs Turner, and she agreed with me that it would be a good thing to retain a good tenant, and one who had been an old servant of the family. I never forgave Mr Fantham two years’ rent. His rent was £36 per year. The lease is still subsisting, and there is a fine sward of grass over the whole fifty acres. I was in the plantation on Friday last ; where the trees are closest they are loftiest and best. The pines are next my section in front of the sandhills. 1 do not knew that the roots of the pines extend. The roots of the gum extend very largely and damage the quality of the land around them for a certain distance. I saw the edition of Gordon’s “ Pinetum ” read from to-day for the first time yesterday. I have had an edition of the work for two years. I should assume—and nurserymen generally would assume —if a work written by so eminent an authority as Mr Gordon, was silent about the timber producing qualities of the pinus insignia, that nothing was known of it, I consider Mr Gordon is a higher authority than myself on the matter. Oonisse’s work has been favorably reviewed by “ The Prairie Farmer.” I expected that the timber of the pinus insignis would be useful for timber, but my primary object was to shelter from the drifting sand. I have been vice-president of the Horticultural Society here. On the 4th July, 1872, I delivered a lecture on the Californian pines. The report of the lecture produced in the Lyttelton Times is a true one. [Report put in and read by witness]. In that 1 say that I had no information either from reading or otherwise of the qualities of the pinus insignis, but was engaged in collecting information as to the timber producing trees of California. I sold lOlbs of meadow fescue (Yorkshire fog) to Mr A, Duncan at Is 9d per lb. I cannot give any information as to the supply of a large quantity of the seed to Hon E. Gray. I could have supplied a large quantity of Yorkshire fog at Is 6d per bushel, because I send out so many thousand bushels of seed per year. I do not think, however, that it was furnished by me. I cannot find any mention of it in the ledger. Since 1872 Igo more frequently to Turner’s run, because the facilities for travelling are so much greater. I think I began to plant my orchard in 1873. 1 would not swear that I did not sell in July, 1871, ten sacks of Yorkshire fog at 3s per sack. It might appear in my books, but I cannot say from memory ; that would be a perfect impossibility, Mr Wynn Williams advised me to sell the cattle off the run and not let the run and cattle go together. Mr Fantham asked me whether I would let the run with the cattle, and I told him of Mr Williams’s advice. There was no offer.

The jury pointed out that the vouchers handed to them only accounted for £6OO and odd for grass seed, whereas £IOSO was said to be expended. Mr Garrick called the attention of the jury to the accounts furnished by defendant Wilson to him, which showed an item of £IOSO for grass seed.

Examination continued—l did not receive one farthing of commission from Dumerguc and Place for obtaining the loan to them. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—l spoke of £1054 for grass seeds from a resume of accounts prepared by my clerk. In answer to a question from the jury,

Witness stated that the trees could no! have made any progress had he planted the plantation on the north-east poition of his section, as it was pure blowing sand. By Mr Garrick —A considerable number of the trees planted by the Government have been planted in the blowing sand. To the best of ray belief there are no pinus insignis doing well on the drifting sand. The majority of the trees planted by the Government are pirus maritime. I will rot swear that the pinrs insignis has not been planted by the Gov< rnment along the Kaiapoi line of railway.

Henry Hayes Hennah deposed that he was a member (f the firm of Dalgety, Nichols and Co. In 1871 Dalgety and Co, whom he represented, bad, a current account with

Thomas Wilson. That account was secured by a mortgage over premises in Gloucester street. In May, 1871, the firm gave notice to Mr William Wilson, who was taking an active part in the management of his brother’s business, that they wanted the debt paid off. Mr William Wilson reduced the account to £9OO. He gave an undertaking that if the firm would withhold proceedings for eighteen months he would hold himself responsible personally for the amount of the debt and interest. Witness produced the undertaking signed by Mr Wilson, dated June 30th, 1871. [Document put in and read."] The account in consequence of that remained open until March, 1873, when Mr W. Wilson gave an acceptance for £938 7s lOd, which closed the account. The acceptance was paid at the Bank of Australasia on 30th September, William Henry Wynn Williams deposed that he was solicitor to the estate of the late 0. B. Turner. The two documents produced were in his handwriting. They were memos of agreement for draft lease from William Wilson to Alfred Cox for the letting of the property in C. B. Turner’s estate to the latter. He took notes of the provisions agreed to by both parties ; they were both there —both Mr Wilson and Mr Cox. They gave instructions as to the lease, which witness took down and now produced. There was nothing in the instructions as to supply of grass seed. There was nothing said either by Mr Cox or Mr Wilson about seed to be sown or about a well. The draft of lease was submitted to Messrs Hanmer and Harper as solicitors for Mr Cox. Witness only acted for the lessor. Some time after Mr Monk had been appointed trustee Mr Wilson asked witness quite as an ordinary matter whether he would be justified in giving the tenants a small quantity of grass seed ; this was only a few months back. Witness told him that it was for him to use his own discretion about it, but by no means to supply it himself. Witness knew that Mr Wilson and Mrs Turner had been quarrelling for some time about increased allowance, and witness told him particularly not to supply the seed, as Mrs Turner might impute motives to him. Defendant never told witness about sowing grass seed on the estate, or consulted him about it as solicitor of the estate. Witness was never consulted as to the plantation, or knew of expenditure. Mrs Turner asked witness, as solicitor to Mr Monk, to obtain the accounts for her. He failed, as defendant Wilson would not give them to him. He produced also draft lease, Wilson to Gillingham. To this lease Mr Cox was a party guaranteeing payment of rent by Gillingham; but there is no mention of grass seed. The draft was perused by Messrs Hanmer and Harper on behalf of Mr Cox.

Cross-examined by Mr Harper-—Defendant took advice very frequently from witness about the estate. Sometimes he asked serious questions about it, and sometimes not, The conversations mostly related to Mrs Turner. He never consulted witness as to buying seeds. W ith exception of the sixty acres at Malvern bought through witness, he never heard till to-day of any other land being bought up there for the estate. James Goss deposed that he was a builder and contractor, carrying on business in Christchurch, and was in a position to form an estimate of the value of buildings. He had examined the shop of Mr Walker, Colombo street. He considered the front shop worth only £lB5 apart from the new building just erected, consisting of two rooms. The building at the back he should consider worth £47, There was no chimney; it consisted of two bedrooms. The building he should consider was worth £2OO in 1873.

Cross examined by Mr Joynt—Building material and labor were slightly dearer in 1873 than now.

Andrew Duncan, recalled—The seed produced is a very pure sample of Yorkshire fog. [This was the same sample as stated by Mr Wilson to be a mixture of cocksfoot and meadow fescue, which he stated was the same as Yorkshire fog.J There is no meadow fescue in this at all* Meadow fescue is different from Yorkshire fog altogether. It is hard to say whether there is any cocksfoot or not, but I think it is a very pure sample of Yorkshire fog. We bought ten sacks for the Hon B. Gray in 1871, which I think was principally Yorkshire fog. I think he paid 3s per three bushel sack. I never bought any ten bags of meadow fescue. You will find descriptions and plates in ,f Sinclairon Grasses,"and “ Sowerby on Grasses” both of meadow fescue and Yorkshire fog. I produce a copy of “Sinclair on Grasses.” [Book handed in.] There is perceptible difference between the seeds of the two—a very great difference. The meadow fescue is the most valuable of the two. It sells here for Is 2d to Is 9d per lb, according to the purity of the sample. I should think it weighed eighteen pounds to the bushel. Yorkshire fog weighs from seven pounds to ten pounds to the bushel. I |distinctly state that the ten bags bought by us from Mr Wilson for Hou E. Gray was not meadow fescue. The seed now shown to me looks very much like meadow fescue, but I should not like to swear. Meadow fescue is very like a light sample of rye grass, or Italian rye grass, with the horns rubbed off; so that one is apt to confuse the three. There is no resemblance between it and Yorkshire fog. lam sure it is not Yorkshire fog. There is no chance of a moderately expert person confounding the seed of meadow fescue with that of Yorkshire fog. Meadow fescue is not sown broadcast, or in large quantities. In September, 1875, the value of two-year old pinus sylvestris was from 30s to 60s per hundred, according to the size ; three-year old sylvestris would cost from £3 to £4 per hundred. Ponderosa would cost from £5 to £7 per hundred, and maritima from 30s to 40s per hundred. Pinus insignis, two-year old, £2 to £3 per hundred. In 1871 blue gum seed was £2 10s and in 1875 £1 10s per lb. In 1872 blue gum seed was worth I think £2 10s per lb.

Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—ln my catalogue of 1871-2, blue gum seed was quoted at Is per packet. A packet contained about a teaspoonful, A twoiyears’ sylves is two years’ transplanted, would be worth from £4 to £5. I will swear that defendant Wilson sold me ten sacks of rough ordinary seed, principally Yorkshire fog, at a very small price, I think about 3s per sack. We have never been asked for Yorkshire fog. It has had no market value at any time daring the past ten years so far as my experience goes. I believe that I have never bought lOlbs of Yorkshire fog from Mr Wilson at Is 9d per lb. If it appears in his ledger I may believe it. It can be easily explained, as Mr Wilson, in his establishment, calls meadow fescue Yorkshire fog, and this being the case, we would be equally pleased. At this long interval of time I would not swear poei

lively to whether I got Yorkshire fog from Mr Wilson.

John Dewsbury recalled—l have been selling seeds for nine years. The sample of seed banded me is Yorkshire fog. It is the same as went to Turner’s run. Ido not see any cocksfoot In it. The sscond [sample is seed of meadow fescue. It is quite different from Yorkshire fog. Some of this seed was sent up to Turner’s run. It is very much like rye-grass. Cross-examined by Mr Joynt—Meadow fescue is very like a light rye grass. I was salesman as well as accountant. Mr Wilson had no other salesman. There does not appear to be any cocksfoot in the sample shown tome. If Mr Wilson has stated that there is a large proportion of cocksfoot in it, he decidedly wrong. Mr Garrick said he wished to ask his Honor to allow of the closing of the plaintiff’s case being deferred until the next day. He had subpoenaed Mr Alfred Cox as a witness, but that gentleman pleaded his privilege as a member of the House of Representatives. His Honor could not see that Mr Cox’s evidence would put Mr Garrick’s case in a better position, as he had the evidence of Mr Wynn Williams on the subject. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. this day. Friday, July 21. The Cctaft re-opened at 10 a.mThe hearing of this case was resumed. Edwavd William Roper gave evidence as to tha rent paid in 1869 for premises occupied by him in Oxford terrace belonging to Turners and produced receipts showing. ke had paid £4 per month rent. This closed Che plaintiffs’ case. Mr Joynt then called the following evidence ;

William W. Charters, who produced several books of account, said he had been in Mr Wilson's service for two years. Mrs Turner used to come frequently to Mr Wilson’s for the purpose of receiving her annuities and inspecting the accounts. She used to sit down by witness’s side, and he read over to her items from the cash book, giving her vouchers to show that they corresponded with the entries. This would be continued until the account then current had been gone through. She went through the books in November, 1875, and May of this year. After going through the books on the last occasion she said she would call again on the following Monday to sign the books, but she did not. In April Mrs Turner, accompanied by Mr Oowlishaw and his clerk, came and said they were there for the purpose of examining the books and vouchers. Witness produced them, and also a statement of accounts which he had prepared for Mr Wilson, It was a resume of all the accounts in Turner’s estate. The accounts produced are the same. Witness did not give the accounts to the clerk, but to Mr Oowlishaw, who handed them to his clerk. They remained some time over an hour, but he could not be positive as to how long. Mrs Turner did not on any occasion when going through accounts with witness, rats® any objection. Mr Monk had examined the rfceounts; he had done so in August last beffoe he was appointed trustee. Witness had seen him frequently examining the accounts 1 with Mr Wilson. He could not say if Mr Monk was hurried away by Mr Wilson. Witness had seen Mr Monk examining the books in the absence of Mr Wilson. Once or twice he went into the office while Mr Wilson was absent, where the account books and vouchers were lying for weeks for him. The account given to Mr Wynn Williams was commenced in March. It took a long time to make up. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—The principal and interest accounts were kept separate in the ledger until about a twelvemonth ago. Mrs Turner would stop about three-quarters of an hour or so. Witness would not swear that she was only half an hour. Mrs Turner never signed the books in his presence. That was before his time. The accounts were for six months he believed. The accounts examined by Mrs Turner ip. November last would be those up to July, 1875, a year’s accounts. Mrs Turner has never signed the books since he had been there. Witness was an experienced accountant, and understood double entry. The only opinion Mrs Turner could form from examining the accounts, as he had stated, would be that the vouchers for expenditure would agree with the cash book and show the items. There would be no opportunity of checking what had been received on behalf of the estate.

Cross-examined by Mr Wynn Williams— He could hear Mr Wilson, on the occasions when Mr Monk and Mr Wilson were going through the|hooks, explainingto him theitems of account. Witness went through the principal account partly with Mr Monk, Mr Wilson came in, and he then went on with it. The items for grass seed between July, 1872, and January, 1873, appearing in the account sent to Mr Wynn Williams, were not objected to by Mr Monk. Witness was morally certain that Mr Monk knew of the expenditure for grass seed, because he had previously gone through the accounts with him. Witness never remembered Mr Monk making any remark on the matter of grass-seed expenditure. Witness recollected a letter from Mr Williams, dated 14th February, 1876, asking for a copy of accounts or the books In the estate. The resume of accounts now produced was made by me from the hooks of the Turner’s estate. The item of £9OO loan from Turner’s estate to Thomas Wilson appears to the account of Joseph MoiV. In the original books the loan on 30th September, 1873, appears to Thomas Wilson. It is explained thus that the mortgage was to Moir and not to Wilson. He had made this out as a statement of the existing mortgages, the state of the property, how the annuities were spent, &o. It did not profess to be a verbatim account, but a resume, showing hoW the moneys were spent. Moir was then the mortgagor, and it would have been incorrect if he bad put it to Thomas Wilson. Moir had the mortgage since October last. The reason why the Agricultural and Pastoral Association was shown, was because he wanted to show how the money had been repaid. He could have left that out entirely, but he wished to give a full statement. He did not show the name of Thomas Wilson because there was nothingto showthat he was connected with it. Mr Moir being the mortgagor, this was the reason why his name appears as to the £9OO, It might have been a mistake taking Mr Wilson’s name out and putting Moir's in. In the middle of March his brother-in-law prepared accounts fur Monk, jta; other defendant. He remembered gmng to Mr Williams about putting i« a defence to the action. It wag

after this that the accounts were prepared. They were prepared for Monk. The letter produced was written by him, [Letter dated 21st June, 1876, asking for certain documents which had been given to Mr Williams to conduct defendant Wilson’s defence ; amongst others a copy of accounts. ] That letter refers to the copy of accounts put in by Mr Williams and now before the Court. He was instructed to prepare the accounts for Mr Monk. To the best of his recollection the accounts sent to Mr Williams were prepared for Monk, They took about three weeks to prepare. By Mr Garrick —It must have been a mistake that the date of loan to Thomas Wilson was altered from September, 1873, to October, 1875. He did not know where the mortgage in 1873 was shown. By Mr Joynt —The accounts were bound to show the principal because the interest was paid.

Henry Bogie Huddleston, surveyor, deposed to making a plan of Turner’s run and also to inspecting the property. He valued the Gloucester street property at £1250. The mortgages taken in Christchurch would not in any way realise what was lent upon them if realised to-morrow. There was no such thing as market value here. Mr Thompson’s valuation only gave the value of building material. If put into the market tomorrow the building would realise the mortgage moneyand. all expenses. It would realise “£950 under the most disadvantageous circumstances. The adjoining land was sold three years ago at the same rate per foot that he put on this. In the case of the adjoining property there were no buildings. He valued the Gloucester street property at £l2 10s per foot. There was forty-eight feet frontage. He valued the house and shop in Gloucester street at £500; the bakehouse, oven, &c, £100; stable (detached), £SO. The land he valued at £6OO. He assessed the house at rent of £SO per annum three years ago. He believed the sale of thel adjoining section was for cash. He had valued Barrett’s property, consisting of four-roomed house, and shop, stable, and land, with three frontages. He valued it at £l5O. Walker’s property he valued at £250. The ground rent was £l2 7s 6d per annum. Cross-examined by Mr Garrick—The objection he had to Mr Thompson’s valuation was that he put down a house, which was lettable and was producing rent, as building material. If witness were to value Mr Garrick’s mansion on the Papanui road as building material, he would look at him.

Mr Garrick—l will give you a handsome commission if you get me a purchaser for it at half what it has cost me. Witness continued He regarded Mr Thompson not as a valuer, but as the confidential agent of a large mortgage company. He might be competent as a valuer, but he objected to the way in which he arrived at his value of this property. Mr Thompson had told him that he was not a valuer. He had never seen any but this one of Mr Thompson’s values, so that he could not arrive at a conclusion on his character ae a valuer. Witness ’had been a valuer for thirty years, and considered himself as an expert. He did not draw any deductions from Mr Thompson’s position fis adviser to a large mortgage company!' He did not state it to impugn Mr Thompson’s valuing or to adopt it. He stated' it to show that he did not consider Mr Thompson as an ordinary valuer. If he had not been directed by the Resident Magistrate to assess the property in Gloucester street at the rent, he should have fixed the assessment on the value of the land and buildings, He would return the value for assessment without deduction for insurance, taxes, &c. That would be the principle he should value on. He would be prepared to introduce a cash purchaser for £950 for the Gloucester street property within one month from the present date. A few years back property in Gloucester street was totally unsaleable and unlettable. The property occupied by Andrews was sold, he believed, at £6 per foot; Hiddlestone’s, at the corner, brought less than that; He would consider the property in Goucester street as good security for £9OO. The property in Gloucester street went up very high, and then came down; but it has since increased far more in value than any other outlying street in Christchurch. Mr Wilson had always disputed every valuation he bad made. His valuation of Walker’s property included everything. A plantation was absolutely necessary on Turner’s estate, as without it the land would not have sold for a township, He considered that the formation of the plantation in question was as inexpensive as any mode of such shelter could be and further that it had a prospective value for timber.

Jennings Moffat deposed as to the valuation of the trap made by him. Joseph Fantham deposed to having been on Turner’s run for four years. He had managed the station for Mr Cos, commencing from 1870. The run then was in’pretty good condition as regarded its capacity for cattle. There was not a very large amount of grass. Witness prepared-the run for the [sowing of grass seed by Mr Cox’s instructions. Witness remembered the grass seed coming up. In Gillingham’s time he sowed eighty bags over the run. He was employed by Mr Gillingham. This seed was sown on the northeast side of the run, not on the freeholds. The seed was sown in the most suitable spots ; it was done by Gillingham’s instructions. It was a mixture of grass seeds. It was composed of rye grass, clovers, Yorkshire fog, and a small quantity of prarie grass. The seed sown by him was in good order. One bag was rather rough, but it was sweet, clean seed. It was mixed ready for him to sow, and none of it appeared old, damp, or clotted. He believed the sowing spoken of took place in July, 1872. There was more rye grass than Yorkshire fog in the mixture. He had sown his own fifty acre section on the run rented from the estate. The seed came from Mr Wilson, and was sown in September, 1876. The mixture of seed comprised rye grass, cow grass, and clover. It would probably amount to a bushel and a half altogether per acre. There was a bushel of rye grass and lOlbs of mixed seeds per acre, He had seen the run since it was originally sown ; the sowing of the seeds on the run was a great improvement of the feed. The run now was in a very bad condition ; it was heavily stocked, and it was a bad time of the year, The improvement to the run from the sowing"continued all along until Strachan took it and heavily overstocked it. The grass on his own fifty acres was very good indeed. Mrs Turner had been on the run since the grass had been sown on the run. She was aware that there was grass seed sown on it. Mr

Gillingham paid witness for sowing the seed on the run.

Cross examined by Mr Garrick—The price of rye grass seed in 1875 was about 6s per bushel. The lease of my fifty acres has about ten years to run. Witness had never made an offer to Mr Wilson for the cattle and run. He would have given £BOO a year for it with the cattle on it. He could not say when the seed was delivered.

His Honor pointed out that the date of the account for the supply of the seed was January, 1874, whilst the witness swore that the seed was supplied after the flood, which he said was in 1875.

Mr Joynt said the witness was altogether out in his dates. Witness continued—The flood was in April, 1874. Mr Joynt, after the adjournment, said that some proposals had been made, which, if accepted, would end the case now. Mr Garrick said that he was prepared on the part of the guardian and trustee to advise his client to accept the terms proposed which would prevent litigation.

His Honor said that this was a case in which counsel might advise the Judge privately as to the reasons which led to the arrangement, and then the Judge would exercise his equitable jurisdiction, and see whether the rights of the parties were properly considered. Mr Garrick said that the arrangement would be embodied in the decree.

Mr Joynt said that what he would suggest was that the counsel should come before his Honor privately and submit to him for ratification the terms upon which a decree might be framed. His Honor quite agreed with that course. If the Court were adjourned until 3 p.m, counsel might be prepared to come before the Court with the terms for ratification.

Mr Wynn Williams said that he was prepared on behalf of his client to accept the terms proposed. His Honor said that looking to the length of time which the jury had been engaged upon this case, and consequent detention from their business, he thought that an arrangement might be come to between counsel for the payment of a daily fee to the jury. Of course it was a matter for arrangement, but he would be prepared to sanction such a course.

The Court then adjourned to 3 p.m. to enable counsel to prepare the terms of the proposed decree.

After the adjournment, and on the Court resuming— Mr Garrick announced the basis of the decree to be as follows : Defendant Wilson to retire from trusteeship. Plantation to be conveyed to William Wilson at £2O per acre, say five acres. Wilson to refund estate cost of plantation, with interest upon each item from date of charge at eight pounds per centum per annum.

Wilson to refund cost of grass seed sown on land and run leased to Gillingham, with interest at eight per cent. Wilson to refund £SO on account of grata seedsupplied to Fantham, with interest as above.

Wilson to take over Moir’s, Barrett’s, and Walker’s mortgages.

Wilson to take over Colonial and National Bank shares, refunding to the estate their cost and interest at above rate, less dividend. Wilson to take back investments in land at Malvern Hills and New Brighton, refunding purchase money to estate, with interest at above rate, less rents received.

Wilson to refund subscriptions to New Brighton road] and bridge, and surveyor’s fees paid for inspection of land at Malvern.

Wilson to take back safe at original cost without interest

Wilson to refund Dumergue and Place’s advance with interest as above. Wilson to refund discount and commission received by him in the matter of the sale of live stock with interest as above.

Accounts to be referred to Mr Draper, of Christchurch, accountant and (an accountant to be named by Mr Joynt), with liberty to any of the parties to surcharge and falsify the accounts.

Disagreement between the accountants to be referred to a third accountant, to he named by themselves, before commencement of investigation i Balance appearing due on taking of accounts to be paid by Wilson to the trustee or trustees.

Plantation fence to be put in good order by defendant Wilson, Defendant Wilson to pay plaintiff and his co-defendant’s costs of this suit, as between party and party, including costs of reference to accountants, either party to be at liberty to apply to the Court as they may be advised,

Special jury to be allowed one guinea per day, half coats to be paid by defendant Wilson, other half out of the funds of the estate.

Signed— Alex J. Johnston, Judge; F, J. Garrick (for Plaintiffs) ; T. I. Joynt, (for defendant Wilson) ; H. W. Williams (for defendant Monk),

His Honor said that, charged as be was with the duty of seeing that the interests of the infante were regarded, he approved of the basis of decree submitted,

The jury were then discharged without a finding, by consent.