SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 21, 11 October 1842, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

’ PARNELL v. , RATERS and SMITH, Mb. Hanson, who appeared for the;Defendants,' said, he had/to apply to the Court upon affidavits which had djeen filed for the postponeiWent cause in consequence of the absence of John Watts, and necessary witness' on behalf of the Defendants. . v :• j

Dr; Evans, whb was for the Plaintiff, objected to. the postponements . His'Hoßob said; he would not refuse the application.’' 1 - - • r "' : : RHODES u; HORNBROOK.

This was an action onm promissory note, to recover £129. 1,55.: and interest from the 3rd of Noveniber^a^t'.., Mrj appea.red for the Plaintiff. did not appear. , The haim ? ys^jtuig, been prbyeidv. the Juryreturned a yordjjctjfor the, plaihl|ff|!for This was' ah actafeh f brought to recdter'irom 1 Defendant a f and for. the use bf saine. ' -^r/HANson appeared for the-. fevAirs'for the Defen- ' dant. In consequence qf 'the. Übsence of some witness for Befeiidantl'Dr. EVans prayed’ for an adjio|irnm^f. {: Mr: IJkNsbw objected to > it on the grouhd 'bf the- state 1 of Defendant’s health/ he said, must be a serious evil, and jffayed rorh verdict’. Verdict* by cpn-"' sent, for £SO, mberesf from the 13th MaqchV 1841, and costs. 1 ' r '•"/ --i ; j ;•!■

~ /.. ■ CAINES WADE. ' 5 ' J ' ' J ' . .\,A t -. 1 ; jj , v This, was, an actipo brought to compel the Defendant to Plajiiitiff a lyase of a blpijk of land in Wade’s jCown, acres, according to an agreejnent signed by Defendant 1 ,: and produced. sjtr* Hanson appeared foy tt®. Plaintiff, and Mrs.. Ross for- the Defendant./ The' Judge remarked, that, the issue, as it at pres'entj stood on not. go t,p a Jury. .The agreement involved, a point of law. Mr. Danson would have an opportunity of bringing the question before 'hinn r , - . " ! /

/./. -HEAEY.y. lIEALY. >

This was ah 1 aktibh on the part of the plaintiff Johti Philip" recover one half of the value of land; held by Dr; Healy the under al^idbrdeiri'(Second series, No. 27) given out by the NeWZealand Company. j Mb. H an soNvaddresSed the Jury for. the Plaintiff; an^ DftTjlyANS rephed. t *•: William Wajcefield, , said—l am ' Principal Agent of the New; Zealand Company; I rCmem- ‘ her of the! arrival Dr. Healy, (Defendant) and John Philip Jiealyi (Plaintiff) in,the Colony; they made some - application to me in reference to the subjec| ; i^r,dispute;.. The younger Healy (Plaintiff), waded; upon me, - iii consequence of a dispute between them, requesting my interference to prevent the dispute from proceeding further, requesting me.-tp. intercede with Defendent to procure him sonie means, of subsistence. ;r He produced some cprrespondence, which he said induced him to emigrate ; ; I saw both parties,, and they referred ,th,eir dispute to me. I reportf-' 1 mended the Defendant to give the Plaintiff . £5/ and that the land, when , given put, should" be divided equally .between them; this was agreed to by both parties. The land was represented by a land order No. 27, (Second series) issued by the New . Zealand Company. ~'PheV letter produced: is the hand-writing of Dr j, li ealy;' -I have commuuipatbdsiVtith’ them .by means letters, and can take it. upon me to identify the signature;; I think the vessel the Messrs. Healy came, to this cpfony in,, was the Duke of Roxburgh, the Defendant came out as surgeon. Cross-examined by Dr. Evans —l think

v -fy-- • ■ • y-*- '?y4iry'-"' ,there Was- soh|ethfng ,; said as ‘ to'i|thef ? passage there wa& an adinission the s tOs give Velieye his present itecesfatiee* -anjl*]ialjtme;]iajnd; ’it was.given out,;. !the Vcertaimy 'induced to emigrate by U sbrt of promise made by the, Defendant to give him some land: The elder; Healy stated thab the younger-had-been wild,> and, that it uUdersttoding that he should behave myself to say, that, fhe Conduct bias been extremely good since ’that'frahsaction. The any question to he put as to, |he 5 cha¥actef Or siibsequent behaviour of Plaiiififf; - 1 ••“/ \ - . / .

. . Verdict,Pefenh'aht, ; •' ' • ■ ■ y 'WATSON, v. MONraiTH. ilus. Recover from jthe for work c done, and breach of/ConfMctf - mß^&anso^'^^Appeared for the (ithd ; ®. 'Defendant.v. It.j appeaisea rhe - Mr/, Hanson/ entotedr; infeb a. ; ccaitaract? With DefbAdMit iri' Apfil last; to make some alterations &id ? 4(Miiidns in the house occupied by him; * f The been- commenced when the to alio# the Plaintiff to 'gO-"6n l 4" f ■* ■■ v n-j r.~;- rs, r..*--., ; The : Jqmes iQattele ssi id[ I was employed,. By Mr." Wafson, at Wqfk at the .to: enlarge the house; ,1 di<i hotephtipne till the whole of the work was finjshn|-; ? T' le:ft off by,MiZ MonteitH’s orders,; employed me originally; I was, employed py. Mr. Watson, and Mr. Monteith told fne, J pot to work any more... . the reason popped the work. :i Georffe Builder; ; I know Plaintiff land Def ehdant; r theipbnthpfJune last Defen-.dant-poi ,nted, pqt by Plaintiff; I .looked at thq y?9fk;,,^nh’formed my opinion as to, jits value,ihemg byMr.Monteith to do Ao„; I out to‘me at £9 155.; after |hat, lwo btber Parties were called in to value the work, and somie addition was pointed oufto them/ this raised the work to £lO ; the work' an unfinished state,, and, as far as ib’WaedohSe, it-mighthe considered well dohe, it was . done, it was worth £lo* as is>geherally,;>dpnW'j# the .Colony;- the wpfk, was pointed out, in my presence, £0 Mr, Taylor ; ; pnjbehalf heh'alffbf present when, they Were valuhfg rthey valued' the work tha|. was :J dbn[e by plaintiff at £lo /loss ; of tiiii<e| wovdd- bh boniidered'every thing, as Mr; Mob,/ teith foffid eyery ihaterial; l am not aware that any agreement wa& produced, although I’heard was anh|rlement; ; V v CrosS-CxammlOd-by Dr; of the persons read/the agreement, -andlit was merely stated 3isllat : sd much .work was .to be done / the called in, arbitrators for w&k idone j they were not to act as . arbitrators for they merely valued _ the gave no’ remuneration for loss of time ; d/think it was mentioned by Mf . ‘ Wilson; that/the : v6um of £IG was the amount, for work could not know the amount of loss of v merely ;valued the, work done, and nothirfgtwas said to them about the’ loss of timb was said to the arbitrators' about the losS^ifcWatson might incur by not. completing thC but Mr; Watson men-; tioned 'it,' andMfe Wilson said they had nothing' to do vrith Monteith- pointed out to, me wliat was te done ; my opinion is that no profit epufebe made pt the sum agreed; for, (£56); [agfeeflfcht read oyer to witness] and he stated 1 that-nb . cotdd.beinsule,;. the work was not’fiiiisMj but roughly .put together; Wiltiam and builder, said—-I have Seen'aCPntract enterediritobetweenPlaintiff andDefendabLAnd shouldsay thatit is impossible to kay'what could- Re made without having four , ltb!^lr& , , .ought to have loss of time to.be cPhsidfred Caffiot if Say what the amount ought td'bdf^ ri cafihbt .Say whether I could make of it or not; there is a vast ’deal- of'iijrcihhle'-'lri-wPrks- of this kind; there ought to' be abqtit £ls' or ’£ 16 profit. . , Cfoss-exajnined by Dr. Evans—l estimate this trouble4q Fe to look after the timber, &c.; going tothe 1 River Dutt for timber; I know nothing abo!i|t "whether 1 Mr. Watson went to the Hutt Or I think he ought to have£is or things are to he provided ijy the buildeti W6' always allow for trouble; and where is' £s7# £ 15 or! £l6 ought to be Allowed for trouble; benches to be provided;- timber found; Wiliidni Hughes, dealer in timber, said—L remember rPlaihtiff coining to me severaltimes-for timber; he camp to me at different times, .for timber fpr jobs; Mr. Watson told me he.catife. by MX?^ohtpitjb/s '* orders for one-inch boards, and also for/piae inch-and-a-half boards; Mr. MOntpith pagaei more than obce./ ‘ ; ’Dr» Evans—Mr: Mon* teith’came mPrd tliab bncd/ ; he Came several times : Mr. 'WatSon has purchased timber several times; Mr. Watson came more than once

about, the tmjbsr'; the first tiM^ s 'ib/%y, plaj*v in..Syduey^Sjxpi£i.^lMJ .' no; ( William] (behalf ?as, to the of someilbor done, s on: the day ■appomted I was to meet Mr. Wilson on Mr. iMonteith’s I estimated the work done at £6, there; ;b|ing a temporary bench l and shed, unCfe .iiiconyenience he had bebii ; put to, to Mr. android that £l° we could-.Scoft present I told this to Mr. Wilsoif-; Plaintiff .recognised. Mr. Wilson asacting on' - myself paid “Ve;;'|ia(l : awarded ''£lsr. and »KEi£ , } - I-wafe to ; yahte; the Wflifk and to value jthe labour dnd trouble. §on on? his behalf;" aikl I and ~ valued; M'rf'Scdttdone about,^9; Mr. Wdson did kU, him i| ; y^as / f whjle, but ijie“ ippri[npt'y»|i* i6 l iOt5 k ■‘f‘^m4bd^ !, yqi^fe^^i*^ , cdhsidered' was the value?; I the work' dohe^ l at the ' housd to hd; I see thebdntl®ct v till J afterwards.;..l do not think it Was • pro3u£bd i?J fo; ! Mr. Wilsbn V ’l' did" not know tall after’ Whai? he > to-haveffor the ? job; 1 ;s61Q ; was the.fall- remuneration 5; have had- some conversations «dih •' other personstsince; I didnbt’make a •>

that the- work , done was worth: £’lG; I do ; ppt > recollect Mr/vWilson makingisoch a. statjaaogqt., ; - Mr. Hansom addressed the Juryfor tiff; he- directed?, their/attention to . thp v fqck of the learnediiCduncilrfor . the haviqg rested his defence ron the. testimony, pf Traylor, who was thteHaintiff’s arbitrator, and whp fead, i afterwavdsi-icompleited the contract, which/fhePlaintiff ' hAdc.undfertaken. ;‘TOy ••fiadr.lie/nofe called Mr./Wilson/who had adted as arbitrator for the defenders, than whom he rbelievedi there j washot a more; reSpectchle.-iban i - Dr: Evans * i tiff to be pdidmp to tender. .. ; .- .h» f.-'ii. .. .Txi,i. ■' 0 . Aj . ■