SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VI, Issue 656, 27 July 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, July 26. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury.) LORD V YOUNG HUSBAND, Messrs Buckley and Watkins, who had known the defendant in Timaru for many years, were examined as regarded his state of mind. John Lewis deposed to sending Mr Lord the receipts for payments on tho shares transferred by defendant to plaintiff. According to his opinion the property was worth some £4OO. The Provincial Loan and Investment Association had received £ll4 in thirty-eight monthly payments from plaintiff. William Henry Wynn Williams deposed to having had conversation in October, 1868, with defendant as to transfer of certain shares in the Investment Association to the plaintiff. The defendant informed him that he had sold to Mi Lord the property referred to on Oxford terrace. Mr Harper put in letter from U.8.A., forwarding conveyance for execution, Younghusband to Lord, on completion of which they would pay defendant £llO. In answer to this the solicitor of defendants declined to execute conveyance. James Callender deposed to having received about September or October, 1868, a letter from defendant, informing bim that he had sold the property to Mr Lord, to whom he was thereafter to pay rent which was done. The letter had been xost, and could not be found, Alexander Lean gave evidence as to occupying the premises from 1872 to 1875. This closed the plaintiff’s case. For the defence Dr Foster called the following evidence:— Mary Anne Younghusband deposed that there was no proposal or engagement between plaintiff and her daughter before defendant’s departure from Timaru. Before defendant went he gave her four bills [Bills produced signed by plaintiff.) Defendant did not endorse the bills himself, nor did he tell witness to do so. He simply told me to present them. The Bank manager told witness to endorse the bills, Witness heard of defendant about twelve months after ho left being in England, but did not see him from October, 1868, till the end of 1875 or beginning of 1876, Plaintiff gave witness to understand, before the presentation of , the first bill, that he held the property in trust for her from her husband. Witness never told plaintiff that she had the acceptances until the first one was presented. Plaintiff came to live at the house of witness at £1 10s per week by his own proposition. Witness did not notice anything more than defendant being in a greater passion than ordinary, and leaving his business in a state of confusion when he left her in 1868. This was all that made her believe that his state of mind was unsound. Dr Foster asked for an adjournment until next day. as it might result in an arrangement being made between his learned friend and himself to conclude the case. His Honor said that great waste of public time had taken place that day, and he was not disposed to grant an adjournment till next day, Ultimately an adjournment for half an hour was agreed upon to enable the counsel on either side to arrange terms of settlement. After the adjournment, Mr Harper announced that his learned friend Dr Foster had agreed that a decree should be drawn up on the terms of the declaration —that is, that defendant agrees to execute conveyance of property on payment of amount by plaintiff agreed upon. The jury were then discharged witnout a finding. The Court then adjourned sine die.