SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2424, 12 January 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

A T ISI PRIUS SITTINGS. Wednesday, Jahttaey 11. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The following evidence was taken after oar going to press yesterday : BAILEY T WILKIN AND CO. In this case, Alexander Bailey of Balcairn was plaintiff, and BoberL Wilkin and Co. defendants. F. O. Tahart deposed that in December, 1880, he went up and saw the crops of plaintiff. They looked favorable. About the middle of February witness went up again, and made a careful examination of the crops to see whether it would be judicious to moke further advances. The crops had failed greatly. The wheat he thought would be fair to average all round at from twenty to twentyone bushels to the acre. The oats would go about twenty bushels to tho acre in one part, and about twelve to fifteen bushels in the other part. Tiie barley would yield about ten bushels to the acre of very inferior grain. The result of the enquiry was that his firm declined to make any further advance. Tho firm settled witn the Insurance Company for amount of Bailey’s debt to them. Ho considered the crops were not worth more.

In cross-examination by Mr Holmes, the witness said that there were weeds in the bottom end of the wheat paddock. Ho did not notice any sorrel in the wheat. The crop was not a foul one.

James Little deposed to holding land next to plaintiff. He saw the crops of the plaialiffrequently. Some of the wheat was a light erjp and some good, averaging, he should say, twenty bushels to the acre. Most of ;he oa‘.s wore light. Some twenty acres of iL -a wen a fair little crop, and he should tLmt that it would come from fourteen to fifteen bushels to the acre. Generally the crops in the district that year were nut as an average heavy. The barley was very light indeed, it might go five or six bushels perhaps. The

gtaolte put up by the plaintiff wore about four feet bottom. They woro smaller than the usual run of stacks. In cross-examination by Mr Holmes witness said that the wheat paddock was in grass for some throe years, and was broken up to put this crop of wheat in by Bailey. He asked £ls par acre for this land with house and improvements. . John Loster was called, and gave evidence as to the crops on the land of the plaintiff. Ho thought they were about the average of the crops in the district. John O’Connor and O. Fitzpatrick also gave evidence to the same effect. J. H. Gilchrist deposed to having seen the crop belonging to plaintiff in February, and also the stacks. There was some difference in the size of the stacks. Witnerß took a sample of wheat, and up to within a few days ago had it in his possession. He afterwards gave it to Mr Benn. Witness agreed to purchase 300 bushels of wheat from plaintiff at 3s 7£d per bushel, delivered at Bangiora. The price was somewhat higher than was being paid, os Bailey owed the firm for which ho was manager an account. Ho had never seen good heavy yielding crops turning out a poor grain. In cross-examination by Mr Holmes, the ■witness said that he had taken the sample out of one ataok. After calling three other witnesses, whose testimony was similar to those mentioned above. . , Mr Button addressed the jury, and was followed by Mr Holmes. His Honor summed up to the jury, and after a short retirement they returned into Court witu a verdict for the plaintiff for £55 11s 4d.