WELLINGTON.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VI, Issue 376, 11 June 1856, Page 4

WELLINGTON.

Supreme Coukt.—Before his Honor Mr. Justice Wakefield, and a Special Jury.

Campbelil. v. Fitzgerald

This was an action brought by Lieut - Colonel James Campbell, of Christclmrch, Canterbury, against James Edward Fitzgerald, Esq., Superintendent of the Province of Canterbury, for a Libel. Damages laid at £5000.

Mr. King appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Hart for the defendant.

It appears that the plaintiff after holding the office of Crown Land Commissioner, at Canterbury, for some time, was appointed Registrar of Deeds, &c, at Lyttelton, in room of Mr. Brittan, that gentleman succeeding the plaintiff in the office of Crown Land Commissioner. This appointment of the Plaintiff's, it appears, gave great dissatisfaction in the Province, so much so that a Resolution of the Provincial Council was pa&sed, expressive of their disapproval of the appointment. In forwarding this the Superintendent accompained it by a letter to his Excellency, dated Ist December, 1853, containing the libel complained of, which was as follows, " That the plaintiff Lieut-Colonel Campbell is wholly unfit to to be entrusted with any public office whatever."

The case occupied the whole of Thursday and till 12 o'clock on Friday, and after much, able argument by Counsel on both sides, and on his Honor shortly summing up, reducing the case to veiy narrow limits, the Jury retired for about 20 minutes, returning with a verdict for the plaintiff. Damages, £600. t AIPOET V. CANTERBURY ASSOCIATION.

Mr. Hart for the Plaintiff,—

This was an issue directed to be tried by His Honor Mr. Justice Wakefield as to ■whether on certain facts stated in a special case there had been a sale or no sale by the Plaintiff, Augustus James Alport, as auctioneer, who claimed from the Canterbury Association, the defendants in the action, the sum of £ISS 10s.-2d. for commission on land sales effected by him for the defendants.

Mr. King, who was counsel on the argument of the special case, informed the court that he had received peremptory instructions from Mr. Sewell, the representative of the Association, not to"proceed further in the matter.—The case] was •whether the plaintiff had made a sale or no sale of certain lots of land knocked down to the Canterbury Association in trust for the Ecclesiastical and Educational fund.

Mr. Hart, after entering into the case at some length, was interrupted by the Foreman of the jury, who remarked that there appeared sufficient before them to enable them to come to a decision. Mr. Hart then said if they were satisfied he was, and on permission from the Judge, they, without retiring, returned a verdict" that "there was a Sale."— lndependent.