DISTRICT COURT.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1213, 19 June 1872, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Tuesday, June 18* (Before His Honor Judge Harvey.) IN BANKRUPTCY. In re Michael Philips.— Application was made for suspension of proceedings until the 31st August in order that the proceedings could be taken out of the Court, and a deed of arrangement filed.— Order granted. civil case. Thomas Joyce v. Harry Kenrick. — This was a continuation of the appeal case from the Warden's Court, Greymouth, which has been before the Court for the last few days, and the particular arguments in which have already been published. The fi-st witness called waa Mr R. C. Reid, proprietor of the Evening Sta» } who proved that the notes taken by him on the occasion of the hearing of the case in the Warden's Court, were reprinted in the issue of that date. (Copy produced.) After aome further evidence, witness said he remembered Mr Kenrick saying he would give Mr Joyce his purchase-money back-again and LIOO on the bargain if he would give the share back again. He was not sure that Mr Kenrick mentioned anything about tho payment of calls. Cross-examined by Mr Newton : The next day Mr Kenrick told me that my report of what he had said was incorrect, a3 he never used the words "sleeping interest," but he could not say whether Nancarrow had used the words during the sale. Kenrick distinctly swore at the trial that he never authorised Nancarrow to sell the share asja "sleeping interest." Allan F. Stark, editor of the Grey River Anju-s, said he frequently acted as reporter for that journal. On the 6th May he reported the case Kenrick v. Joyce, in the Warden's Court, Greymouth. He wrote out the case as full as it occurred in the Court; compared the notes with the proofs (the originals v of which he pro duced) before publication, and said that they were substantially correct with what occurred 1 in the Warden's Court that day. The proof sheets produced were not- a verbatim report, but were a condensed newspaper report, made up on the spot from the substance of the question's asked by counsel and answered. Being examined as to a particular point, witness said he remembered Kenrick: saying, while he was sitting at the table alongside of his own solicitor, that he would pay the purchase-money aud give Joyce LIOO to hand back the share. [The proofsheets were admitted and Used in the case.] I Cross-examined by Mr Newton : He distinctly remembered Mr Nancarrow swearing in the Court below that he never mentioned the words "sleeping share," until he wrote them across the receipt at Joyce's request, . and that he sold the share with the understanding that there were to be no wages to pay on it. ! W. Wilson, one of the assessors in the Court below, was called, but proved nothing material. ■ Edward Alfred Drury said he was, a witness in the case in the Warden'!) Court. He gave evidence that a sleeping interest meant thai- the holder was frea from all previous or all future payments for wages or calls. : At the request of Mr Gruinness, the miner's right held by Mr Kenrick for the County of Westland, and produced at the trial, was produced. : This was the appellant's case, and Mr Newton said he did not intend to call any witnesses for the defence. • ' After an adjournment, Mr Guinness addressed the Court, Mr Newton replied, and Mr Guinness rejoined, at great length, but as their speeches occupied four hours in delivery, and would occupy the whole of our available space, it is impossible to reproduce them, more especially as they are not of very great public interest. . • His Honor, after some introductory iemarks, said that the question really appeared to be whether the verdict in the Court below was against the weight of the evidence. That was a grpund upon whiph he might order a re-hearing ; but Courts had been very loath indeed, upon such a ground to disturb a verdict, and few cases could be quoted to that effect. He would take for his argument the evidence as printed in the Grey Rtver Argtjs, which had been admitted by the respondent as being a correct report. The report appeared to him to be substantially correct, as it was very similar to the Warden's notes, and corresponded very closely with thQvivavocc evidence given duringthis case, His Hon< y then read copious extracts from the report of the case in the Court below as it appeared in the Grey River Argus, and said the action was brought by way of appeal against the decision of the Warden and Assessors, and the Court was asked to grant a re-hearing or order a reversal of the decision on several grounds. The first was that the verdict was against the weiglit of evidence. The seoond and third grounds had been already disposed' of, and the judgment of the Court upon them was in favor of the respondent. The fourth and fifth grounds are : — " That the plaintiff was uot entitled to recover the amount sued for until the performances by him of" the condition that he would sell and transfer to me a quarter-share in the Victoria claim as a sleeping share or interest in the said claim. That the transfer alleged to have been made from the complainant to the defendant was not a transfer _of a sleeping quarter-share in the Victoria claim, and the said transfer was made, without my consent." It was not sufficient for a reversal of the verdict of the Court below, to say that there had been a contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. He did not think this was a case in which the verdict: of the assessors ought to be disturbed. The assessors had apparently come to the verdict that this share was one in which wages were to be paid up, to registration, and not a ' ' sleeping in terest" for all future time. He ruled against the appellant on all his points of appeal, aud the appeal would be dismissed with costs. Costs, L 24 lls. .