SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2272, 14 July 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT jVJS/ PHI US. This Day. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The Court re opened at 11 a.m. CREDITORS’ TRUSTEES OP PHASER AND CO. V BEAUMONT AND BROWNE. The hearing of this case was resumed. The evidence for the defence was continued. Mr Cowlishaw deposed to the instructions being given to him to draw the deed of assignment, and that it had been gazetted and declared duly executed by the Court, Ho also deposed as to the preparation of an assignment of tho railway contract of Fraser and Co., and a bill of sale by Fraser and Dunlop to Wood, Sha. d and Co. Tho latter was not executed. The witness was cross-examined very closely by Mr Joynt as to tho instructions received by him to prepare the deed of assignment of the joint and several estates of the debtors for tho joint creditors only, and tho understanding of the purport of tho deed when prepared by the meeting of creditors at which it was approved. John Beaumont, one of tho defendants, gave evidence as to the understanding that tho deed of assignment was to bo for tho benefit of the joint creditors of John Fraser and Company, storekeepers at Mount Somers. The witness was closely cross-examined by Mr Joynt as to tho existence of others in tho firm of Fraser and Co. than Fraser and Dunlop. Messrs W. D. Wood and J. Shand gave evidence contradictory to that given by Henderson and others as to the preparation of a dead of assignment to Wood, Shaud and Co., containing the names of Guild, Dunlop, Henderson and Fraser, with respect to the railway contract. Mr Joynt cross-examined this witness at great length as to tho sale of plant to John Fraser by Wood, Shand and 00., transferred from tho estate of James Fraser. In reply to Mr Joynt, Mr Browne stated that as trustee he had examined James Fraser on oath, and he had stated that ho had never purchased tho plant from Wood, Shand and Co., but had only had the loan of it. In reply to Mr Garrick, Mr Browne said that Fraser made a statement to him not on oath that he had never taken objection to the accounts rendered by Wood, Shand and Co. of the £IOOO for plant until some fourteen months afterwards. His Honor once more suggested that the proper course would be to move for a decree on reading the evidence. There really was no conflict of evidence except on one point—viz , the sale of tho plant. Mr Joynt said that if the case went to the jury he should ask for a number of fresh issues to be submitted to them. Mr Garrick said he was willing to allow this course to be taken. Mr Joynt said he desired to re-call Mr Friodlander to give evidence as to the deed, which it was alleged was sent to Fraser, Dunlop, Grigg, and Guild, for signature by them jointly. The deed purported to bo a security from Fraser, Guild, Grigg, and Dunlop to Wood, Shand and Company. It was a bill of sale assigning all their plant and moneys arising from the railway contract to secure the deposit money. The document came from tho office of Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw, and their names, or one of them, was on the document. In reply to Mr Garrick, the witness stat'd he was positive that there was only one ns n on tho document. Mr Joynt said he had two other witnesses to corroborate this evidence. This closed tho case.

His Honor then said that the parties would agree that the evidence should be read over from the Judge’s notes and documents, and upon this a decree to bo mode in the case. The jury were then discharged without giving a verdict on the issues by consent; the plaintiff to have leave to move for a decree upon the reading of the Judge’s notes and the document put in, the Judge to have liberty to draw inference from facts. The Court then adjourned till next day.