SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 737, 30 October 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PR JUS.

Monday, October 30,

[Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a Special Jury.] The civil sittings of the Supreme Court was resumed at 10 a m.

DOUGLAS V MATSON. In this case James Frederick Douglas, of Doyleston, farmer, is plaintiff, and Henry Matson, of the firm of Matson and Co., defendant. The plaintiff claims from the defendant the sum of £192 10s, under the following circumstances :—lt appears that about July Ist, 1876, the defendant, acting as agent for one George Coleman, sold to plaintiff, and John and Alexander Bruce, 150 acres of land at Ashburton, for the sum of £9OO. The agreement was that £IBO, being 20 per cent, should be paid into defendant’s bands, as agent, and that the residue should be paid by instalments at three and six years. In order to secure the deposit and the payment of the instalments, when due, the plaintiff mortgaged to the defendant R.S. No. 8088, being thirty-three acres situate at Doyleston. The plaintiff gave instructions to defendant to sell the section so mortgaged on July 28 ! h, and accordingly defendant, as plaintiff’s agent, sold the section to one Thomas Dixon for £77). Dixon paid over to the defendant, as agent for the plaintiff, the sum of £192 10s, by way of deposit. Before the commencement of the action plaintiff gave defendant notice that he did not intend to go further with the contract with Coleman. The defendant, however, after deducting £45 5s for commission, expenses, &c,, refused to hand over the balance of deposit received from Dixon, having, as be alleged, applied it to the payment of the amount to Coleman on the first purchase. The plaintiff, however, alleged that the money had not been paid over by defendant to Coleman, hence he brought his action to recover the deposit received by defendant from Dixon as agent for plaintiff. The defendant, in r'ply, alleged that the amount received was sd off as against the amount due by the plaintiff to Coleman after deducting £45 5s expenses and commission due to defendant For the plaintiff ; Mr George Harper, with him Mr Jameson. For the defendant; Mr Joynt. Mr W. Day was chosen foreman of the jury. The following were the issues sent to the jury 1. Did defendant, on the 20th day of July 1876 then being the agent of plaintiff receive from Thomas Dixon the sum of £192 10s for the use of plaintiff? 2. Has the defendant paid the said sum to the plaintiff and has he refused and does he still refuse to do so ? 3. Was the plaintiff at the commencement of this action and is he still indebted to lefendant in the sum of £45 5s for commis si on and expenses on the sale of a parcel of land by defendant as agent for plaintiff? Issues Nos 4,5, and 6 and 7 refer to the sale by defendant to plaintiff of the laud belonging to Coleman and the giving of

mortgage by plaintiff to secure deposit and instalments. 8. Did the plaintiff on the 3rd July 1876 instruct the defendant to sell as agent for plaintiff rural section No 8088 and did the defendant on or about July 28th sell the section to one Thomas Dixon for £770 and receive £192 10s as agent of plaintiff as deposit and part of the purchase money ? 9. la the said deposit of £192 10s so received by defendant as agent of plaintiff from the said Thomas Dixon the money claimed by plaintiff in this action ? 10. Did the defendant before the commencement of this action apply the residue of the said £192 10s after taking out £45 5s as commission and expenses towards the satisfaction of the sum of £IBO due by plaintiff to Coleman ? 11. Has the said sum of £IBO been paid or secured to the said George Coleman or to defendant in any manner other than as aforesaid ? 12 What sum of money (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant in this action ? Mr Jameson having opened the case ior plaintiff by reading the declaration and pleas, Mr Harper briefly stated the case to the jury, and called evidence in support of his case. The case was proceeding when we went to press.