SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1994, 15 July 1880, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIRCUIT SITTINGS. Wednesday, Judy 14. [Before His Honor Mr Juatice Johnston.] SATJNDBB3 Y. DEDAMAIN. Mr Holmes, with him Mr Bruges, for the plaintiff; Mr George Harper for the defendant. 'This was an action brought by Albert Godfrey Saunders, of Christchurch, commission agent, against Frederick William Delamain, of Christchurch, to recover the sum of £7OO on a dishonored bill of exchange, before a special jury, of which Mr G. G. Stead was chosen foreman. s The following were the issues for the jury : 1. Did one William Frederick Neilson on the 18th day of December 1878 by his bill of exchange now overdue directed to tho defendant require the defendant to pay to his order seven hundred pounds three months after date ? 2. Did the defendant accept the same and did the said William Frederick Noilson endorse tho same to the plaintiff? 3. Was the plaintiff’s claim in respect of the said bill of exchange mentioned and set out in the first paragraph of the declaration ■atiafied and discharged by William Frederick Neilson by his solicitor John Beatty Gresson paying to the plaintiff or to his solicitor Richard Dunn Thomas at the defendant’s request on or about the 10th day of July 1879 out of the proper moneys of the aaid William Frederick Neilson a sum of money to wit the sum of three hundred pounds? 4. Was the said sum of three hundred pounds by agreement between the said William Frederick Neilson and tho plaintiff and the defendant paid to and was the same received by the plaintiff in aatisfaotion and discharge of the said bill of exchange ? 5. What sum of money (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover in this action ? Mr Bruges opened the ease for the plaintiff by reading the pleadings and issues. After hearing considerable evidence, Tho jury returned a verdict for tho plaintiff for £4OO, with interest and costs. The Court then adjourned.