DISTRICT COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2402, 14 December 1881, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, December 13. [Before his Honor Judge Ward.] JUDGE y. BBOOKB. This was an action to recover £2OO for alleged breach of contract. Mr Joynt for plaintiff. Mr Harper for defendant. Learned counsel on both sides addressed the Court at length. His Honor, in giving judgment, said the case was one of considerable difficulty, owing to the contradictory nature of the testimony given. The weight of evidence showed that there was a larger quantity of grass seed taken off the land than had been accounted for by defendant. It was impossible to estimate the actual ’quantity of seed thus lost, but the witness, Frank Smith, swore positively that his party had harvested seventy bags, and that there were seventy bags more. There was evidence therefore tnat the defendant got 140 bags off the plaintiff's land. Deducting a third for cleaning, that would leave thirtyfive bags, for which defendant would have to pay, in addition to the fifty, nine bsgs_ accounted for. Judgment was therefore given for £2l 17s 6d, in addition to the amount paid into Court, defendant paying costs. WILMOT V PAPAKUI TOWS HAIL CO. This was an action by Madame Lotli Wilmot to recover £l7O 12s, for alleged breach of contract. Mr Stringer for the plaintiff; and Mr Joynt for the defendants. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendants the undermentioned damages, by reason of the defendants’ breach of contract to hire to the plaintiff the use of -heir public hall at Papanui on the evening of the 6th November, 1881:—To paid to defendants for hire of hall, £2 2s ; to paid advertising, £3 ; to paid man’s services at hall, 10s ; to loss in. admission money, plaintiff being unable to keep engagement with the public to lecture, £ls'. Total, £2O 12s. The plaintiff further claimed £SO damages for refusal of defendant! to carry out their contract to hire the use of the same hall to her on the evenings of the 6th, 13th, 20th, and 27th November, and of the 4th December, whereby the plaintiff was put to loss and expenses in hiring other and less suitable premises. The plaintiff further claimed the sum of £IOO for special damages for loss to her in her profession of * public lecturer by reason of defendants* breach of contract, whereby she was compelled to break faith with the public. The total cla : m amounted to £l7O 12s. Mr Stringer said he would abandon the claim for £IOO special damages. Walter Palairet, Registrar of Joint Stock Comnanies, produced the register of the Papanui Town Hall Company. Lotti Wilmot, who said she was a public inspirational and spiritualistic lecturer, deposed that after an interview with Mr Jackson, one of the directors of the company, she made the agreement produced with Mr Moon, the secretary, for the hire of the hall for one Sunday evening, at £2 2s, with the option oE engaging it for five succeeding Sundays. She hold one Sunday meeting, on the 30th. October. On the following Wednesday she wrote intimating to the company that she intended to avail herself of the option to take the hall for the five succeeding Sundays. On November 4th she received a letter from tha secretary to the effect that she had advertised her lecture on the following Sunday without obtaining tha sanction of the company, and that the use of the hall would not be granted unless she first submitted to the directors for their approval the manuscript of the lecture she proposed to deliver. In reply to that letter she reminded the company that she had a written agreement giving her the right to the hall for five consecutive Sunday evenings, and had given due notice of her intention to avail herself of that right. On the sth November she saw Mr Moon, and tendered him £2 Bs. Eventually ho took the money and gave her a receipt. She made arrangements to hold her lecture on Sunday evening. When she arrived at seven o'clock a largo number of people were waiting to be admitted, but the hall was not prepared in any way, and Mr Moon refused to let ner have the key. She returned to town by the ten minutes to eight train with the people who had gone out to attend the lecture. She waa too excited to notice details, but supposed there were about seventy people there. _ The charge for admission was Is. She paid £3 for advertising the lecture, and 10s to a man engaged to attend. In consequence of the refusal to let her the hall she had been unable to obtain a place to lecture in, and had suffered in the estimation of the people. Her average takings on Sunday evenings in Christchurch were from £ls to £2O. In Melbourne ■ she had taken as much as £35. I Edward Jordon deposed that he had acted ns door-keeper and money taker for Madame Lotti Wilmot. Waa present at Papanui on Sunday evening, the 6th November. There were a great many people waiting for admission at seven o’clock. About £4 15a waa taken on the previous Sunday evening. The takings at the Theatre Royal on Sunday evenings ranged from £ls to £23 or £24. Heard Mr Moon tell plaintiff on the evening of the 6;h November that Mr Matson had the key of the hall, and would not open it until eight o’clock. This was the evidence for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt having opened the case for the defendants, called— George Moor, who deposed that he was the secretary of the Papanui Town Hall Company. The hall was let to the plaintiff on the condition that it waa to be open during such hours as would not interfere with the churches. On the evening of the 6th November, the plaintiff wanted to commence her lecture at half-past seven o’clock. Ha expressed his willingness to open the hall at eight o’clock. John Jackson, a director of the Papanui Hall, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. William Horner, another director, also gave corroborative testimony. Learned counsel having addressed the Court, his Honor gave judgment for £25 13a and costs. KAY AND WOOD V PAEKES. This was a claim for £lls 5a 6d, balance of account due on a contract. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant conducted his own case. The matter in dispute had been referred to arbitration, and the defendant now objected to the award in regard to extras. He produced a receipt for £2 5* 3d, which the plaintiff admitted, and the Court gave judgment for £ll3 0a 3d and costs. This was the last case on the list, and the Court adjourned.