LAW INTELLIGENCE.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 13, 13 September 1842, Page 3

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

On Saturday, the 10th inst. before his Honor E. S. Hals well, the Issue was made up in the following causes : IN THE COUNTY COURT. Murray v. Evans. —Mr. Blathwayt appeareel for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Hanson for the Defendant, who is agent for Mr. John Jones of Sydney. It was an action brought to recover .£4, 165., for work done by Plaintiff', who is a cooper. Defendant pleaded that he was not indebted to that amount. Blathwayt v. Pratt. —Mr. Brewer appeared for Plaintiff, and Mr. Hanson for Defendant. It was an action on a promissory note for £l3. Defendant pleaded an unsettled account to a greater amount. Ludlam v. Spiers. —Mr. Brewer appeared for Plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. Robson v. Canning. —lt was an action brought to recover £l, Bs. Defendant did not appear. Macgregor Daniels. —Mr. Hanson appeared for Plaintiff, and Dr. Evans for Defendant. This was an action to recover £l6. for freight due for the conveyance of goods, the property of Defendant, and at his request. Defendant pleaded, that Plaintiff did not perform his agreement. Harvey v. Watson. —Dr. Evans appeared for Plaintiff. It was an action for £3, Bs., for work done by Plaintiff. Defendant did not appear. o #>

IN THE SUPREME COURT. Hoiit and others v. Perry. —Mr. Brewer appeared for Plaintiff, and Mr. Hanson for Defen- . dant. This was an action to recover £6l, 145., 'I f° r freight on goods shipped by defendant on board of the schooner Kate, recently wrecked oft Cape Terrawite, under an agreement signed- , ’ by the Defendant. The defence was, that the | Plaintiffs had never performed their part of the jjs original contract, by forwarding the goods, and i. that the agreement relied upon was void, as r being without consideration. Tod v. Watt. —Mr. Hanson appeared for ■i the Plaintiff, Mr Robert Tod of Nelson, and f Mr. Brewer for the Defendant. This was an action brought to recover £l5O, the commission ; agreed to be paid by the Defendant upon the ; ; sales of 59 head of cattle, and 576 sheep, ex ; Lady Lilford. I The defence was that Defendant was not indebted, and that he had sold no cattle for Plaintiff. ft Evans v. Hornbrook. —Mr. Hanson appeared for Plaintiff, and Mr. Brewer for Defendant. The Plaintiff who is Mr. Jones’ agent, sought i, to recover £lO2, the price of certain goods sold f and delivered to Defendant by Plaintiff,

The defence was, not indebted

Hay and others v. Allen. —Messrs. Hay and Machattie were the Plaintiffs in this action, and sought to recover, from Jabez Allen £34 for goods sold and delivered.

The Defendant did not appear. Barlow v. Evans.— Mr. King appeared for the Plaintiff, late master of the brig Eleanor, anc Mr. Hanson for Defendant, Mr. Jones’ agent. The Plaintiff, who was discharged from his office of master of the brig Eleanor, by Mr. Evans, sought to recover £IOO for breach ff contract, and false imprisonment. The defence was that the Plaintiff was discharged by liis own consent, and that he was incompetent.

Healy v. Healy. —Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, and Dr. Evans for the Defendant.

The Plaintiff Francis Healy, now of Nelson, sought to recover from John Phillip Healy, of Petoni, a moiety of the land chosen under a certain land order, issued by the New Zealanc Company, No 27 and registered No. S, in the books of the said Company, and which lane order had been purchased with the joint monies of the Plaintiff and Defendant, or the sum of £200., the estimated value of such moiety. The Defence was that the land order* had not been purchased with their joint monies, or on their joint account, and that he had not made any such declaration as that by which the claim was sought to be supported. Hort v. Knight and Hair.— Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiffs; 1 Messrs. Hort, Mocatta, and Co., and Mr. Hair, one of the Defendants, appeared. This was an action brought to recover £34. 14s. 2d., being the difference between the price of certain sheep purchased of the Plaintiffs by Defendants, at a public auction; and of which they accepted delivery, and the price for which the same sheep were afterwards resold. The Defence was that an undue preference had been shewn to other parties in the selection and delivery of the sheep : That Defendants, as the first purchasers, were entitled to the first run, and first delivery.- And that they did not admit the delivery of them. Same v. Sinclair. — Mr. Hanson moved upon affidavit, that William V. Brewer, of Wellington, Barrister at law, be ordered to appear to a Writ of Summons issued against the Defendant, Dudley Sinclair, Esquire. It was reserved for the opinion of the Chief Justice.

Wallace v. Guard. —Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiffs Messrs. Wallace and Co., and Dr. Evans for the Defendant. This action was brought to recover £ll9, 55., the amount of a quantity of oil sold to defendant by one Charles Samuel Cave, their servant, and oh the account of Plaintiffs.

The defence was that, the oil which the Defendant admitted he had received, had been taken by him at £l6 per ton, in part payment of a promissory note for £53 125., given by Cave, in part payment for supplies which were necessary..

Mr. Hanson observed that, in order to make this a valid plea, it must be shown that the supplies were necessary. Now the fact was, they were spirits, which had been the ruin of the season and which had not paid duty.