SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Colonist and Port Nicholson Advertiser, Volume I, Issue 22, 14 October 1842, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Civil sideJ. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4

Before His Honor the Chief Justice. WRIGHT v. WILLIAMS. This was an action brought to recover from the Defendant £2,000. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, and Dr. Evans for the Defendant. The Jury returned a verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to a reference. WRIGHT v. DAYMOND and YOUNG. The Counsel on both sides, in this action, agreed to refer the cause to Mr. Murphy. JONES v. SCHULTZE.

His Honor considered the record in this suit precluded the possibility of sending it to the Jury. JONES v. WADE. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, Mr. Ross for the Defendant. This was a suit in the nature of a bill for an account and discovery to compel the Defendant to render an account of the sale of certain merchandise to the alleged value of £19,000, consigned to him by Plaintiff, and to disclose all securities which he had received, and transfer them, and pay over any balance which might be found due. The Judge said, before he left, he should take measures to give Plaintiff the relief which he sought: he should probably order the Defendant to render' an account upon oath. SAME v. SAME. His Honor said this cause couid not be .tried as the record at present stood.

GUYTON WADE.

This was an action brought upon a bill of exchange, to recover from the Defendant the sum of £250. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Ross for the Defendant. Verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to a point of law.

MANTELL v. REVANS

This was an action brought by the Plaintiff, who is Postmaster of Wellington, to recover from the Defendant, the proprietor of the New Zealand .Gazette , compensation for an article which was published in that paper in July last, reflecting on his character as Postmaster. On the cause being called, Dr. Evans, who appeared for the Defendant, stated, " that he was instructed by Mr. Revans to state that Mr. Revans was not the author of the. article complained of—though responsible for it as editor—that he had ascertained the injurious imputations upon the character of Mr. Mantell could not be supported, and that he accordingly retracted them.”

Mr. Hanson, who appeared for the Plaintiff, having expressed himself satisfied with this retractation, the Jury, by the direction of the learned Judge, returned a verdict for the Plaintiff —Damages 405., and costs.

MERGER v. REVANS.

This was an action brought to recover from the Defendant £246. 13s. 7d., and interest on a bill of exchange, dated 29th June, 1841, and due Ist November, 1841. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, and Dr. Evans for the Defendant. Mr. Hanson haying stated the defendant’s case, Dr. Evans, for the Defendant, called

Dr. Evans, for the Defendant, called

Kennethßethune, who said—l am a. merchant; I remember the Harrington, Captain Mercer, arriving in this harbour, Willis & Co. were the agents for the vessel; had some conversation with Captain Mercer about goods sold to Mr. Revans ; Captain Mercer told me he had sold a parcel of stationery to Mr. Revans ; I asked him what price he had got, and he told me that he had got either 15 or 16 per cent, advance; I remarked that I did not think that was a very great price, and he said he was satisfied, because there was 50 per cent, on the invoice previous to selling; the goods were sold to Mr. Revans 15 per cent, above the 50 per cent. Cross-examined by Mr. Hansq^— He did not say who had charged the 50 per cent., but that he was satisfied with the 15 per cent. George Hunter, merchant, said—l remember the Harrington, Captain Mercer, arriving here; I was present when the Captain made the statement which Mr. Bethune has ;just mentioned; that he had sold the invoice to Mr. Revans at an advance of 15 per cent, on that invoice, but that he was very well satisfied, as there had been a large advance on the invoice previous to Mr. Revans buying the goods; he, did not. state to Mr. Revans what profit he was making, he merely asked Mr. Revans 15 per cent, on that invoice.

Edward Roe said printer; I have had much experience in the business, for about 25 years; [the invoice was here shown to the witness] ; the prices are onethird more than the London prices; the invoice is not in the regular London form; the irregularity is, that the thick post is charged less, and the blue post is charged more; it is usual that the signature of the firm should be put to the biH.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hanson —In the : employ of Defendant. Verdict for Plaintiff —£160, and costs.

HOGG v. WADE. llis Honor said the issue had not been made up correctly. Struck out.

WRIGHT v. MUNN,

This suit was postponed on the application of Dr. Evans, the Defendant’s counsel; the costs of the day to be paid.

TOD v. WATT.

This action was brought to recover £lls, the commission which the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff upon the sale of certain cattle and sheep, ex Lady Lilford. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Brewer for the Defendant. The agreement upon which this action was brought, was read by the Registrar. The following witnesses were called:— Kenneth Bethune said —I was residing at Port Nicholson in April, 1840, and subsequently; the value of cattle at that time it would be difficult now to state; I cannot say that I know of any sale of cattle belonging to Watt; I think the average prices of cattle were from £4O to £SO at that time ; sheep 355. to 48s. Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer —l am an auctioneer; was acting as such in 1840; did not sell any sheep at that time by auction; the price I have mentioned was the market price ; I did not sell any cattle or sheep at that time. John Wade said—l am an auctioneer; I resided at Port Nicholson in April, 1840; I sold cattle for defendant somewhere about that time; I understood they were out of the Lady Lilford; I sold some sheep to Mr. Crawford at 20s. per head; I sold two small lots at 255. to 285.; the two lots did not amount together to above thirty; the sheep sold to Mr. Crawford at £l, were 100 ewes; the two lots were sold to Knight & Hair, and T. & S. Cooke; I sold cattle at that time for Mr. Watt; I sold 10 at £22. 10s. per head, to be picked cattle. Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer —I arrived a few days after the sheep and cattle were landed; I saw the sheep and cattle, some in good condition, many were bad; I saw a great j many lying dead, and saw several dying; I did not hear how many cattle died, or how many sheep; the sheep were worse than the cattle : I saw a great number of sheep dead; I cannot say the number; they were distributed about. Mr. Knight said—l am a storekeeper in Wellington; I was in partnership with Mr. Hair, and carried on the business of a butcher in April, 1840; we purchased no cattle of Mr. Watt; we purchased some at a public auction, but I cannot say whether they were Mr. Watt’s; to the best of my recollection, I think we paid 255. for the sheep, and for the cattle £22, £23, and £24.

[Letter from James Watt to Mr. Tod, dated l£t July, 1840, read] . Mr. Brewer, for Defendant, called James Bell, who said I came to Port Nicholson in the Lady Ulford; I was in charge of sheep whilst on board, not of cattle ; I had charge of neither after they were landed; I saw them landed ; I saw them after they were landed; I think about 25 or 26 cattle died; I was frequently amongst them ; I knew the storekeeper; I do not know how many sheep died, a great many were -dead. Verdict—£27. Is., subject to a point of law. SHAND v. HUNTER, ST. HILL, BREWER, and GUYTON. This was action brought to recover from the Defendants, as treasurer and trustees of the Wakefield Club, the sum of £SO, the rent alleged to be due to the Plaintiff, for the use of a piece of ground in Lambton Quay, occupied by the Wakefield Club. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, and Mr. Brewer for the Defendants. Mr. Hanson having stated the Plaintiff’s case, Mr. Brewer, for the defence, contended, that the Plaintiff had agreed to let the land in question for three years, at 12s. per foot, and called Mr. Watt, who said —1 am a member of the Wakefield Club. Cross-examined by Mr. Hanson —l believe I should be liable to pay my share of the amount to be recovered in this action. HeldbyJudge .notto.be a competent witness.

' Mr. Wade said-—-I am an auctioneer and land agent; I was acting agent for Mr. Shand, in the disposal of his land; I merely had the disposal in the first instance ; in the second, instance, I acted by myself, and accepted an offer to let, which Mr. Shand afterwards confirmed; the offer I received was to lease a piece of land on which a portion of the Club House stands ; I refer to the piece of land let; I;made an arrangement with a member of the Club to let a piece of land let it for three years, on the condition of Mr. Shand not selling the piece of land during that time—this was about 15 dr 16 months ago ; Mr. Watt offered 12s. per foot; the terms were for three years, subject to Mr. Shand not requiring to dispose of the land during that. time,. at. the. same rate of rent as Mr. Brady received for his land adjoining. Cross-examined by Mr. Hanson— Mr. Brady has a quarter of an acre; I considered the average rent of the whole quarter of an acre ; I think the Wakefield Club was first established about two years ago; this agreement was made some time after ; I think it was about the end of 1840, or beginning of 1841. Mr. Hanson, for Plaintiff, called Robert Park, who said—l am a surveyor, re-

siding at Wellington ; 1 know a piece of ground on Lambton Quay, belonging to Mr. Shand, occupied by the Wakefield Club; the yearly rent of land adjoining this is £1 per foot frontage ; the Wakefield Club have been in possession about two years ; there are from 30 to 33 feet frontage.

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer—l know the land belonging to Mr. Brady; I do not know the rent paid for it; I have no idea what was the value of land in that neighbourhood two years ago ; about a . year since land in that neighbourhood was £1 per foot; £1 per foot frontage is paid for land let on lease for fourteen years, not less. George Samuel Evans said—l am a landowner in Wellington; I recollect letting land to Mr. Worser in February 1841, 20 feet £1 per foot frontage'per acre, a lease for 14 years; at that time the value of land was uncertain ; I let my own land at £1 per foot frontage, from information I received from Mr. Brady. Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer —l am not aware of the rent paid to Mr. Brady; I have not considered what rent ought to be paid oh land let for three years. Verdict for Plaintiff —£45, and costs. EVANS v. HORNBROOK.

This was an action brought to recover from the Defendant £lO2. 195., for goods sold and delivered. Mr. Hanson appeared for the Plaintiff, who is Mr. Jones’ agent; and Mr. Brewer for the Defendant.

Mr. Hanson, for the Plaintiff, called John Wade, who said—l am auctioneer and agent; I know Plaintiff; some goods consigned to Plaintiff by the Regia, were placed in my possession ; I sold some of such goods as agent of Plaintiff; I believe the goods mentioned in the invoice produced were those sold to Defendant ; witness has no doubt about these being the goods ; these goods were delivered to Defendant the latter end of April or May, in this year; I have been present at a conversation between Plaintiff and Defendant, subsequent to the sale in the month of June ; the Plaintiff requested me to go to Defendant for payment of the goods; I sent a draft for acceptance, which he did not accept; I went with Plaintiff to Defendant, at which conversation Plaintiff asked Defendant when he was going to accept the bill for the amount of the goods; the Defendant promised to do so the following month, July; I do not know that Defendant was aware I was selling as agent for Plaintiff; he was informed at this conversation that the goods referred to were sold by me as agent of Plaintiff; I received from Defendant several sums subsequently to the sale, but I cannot say that I have received' any thing on account for the Plaintiff, as there was more than the amount paid due to me from Defendant. ' '

Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer —[Produced bill sent in by Messrs. Wade]. We, J. &G. Wade, drew on the Defendant for the amount; always sold goods to Defendant in my own name; I did not depart from this rule when the goods were sold; I did not tell Defendant that these goods were sold on different terms from those usual.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hanson —Agents invariably send in invoices in their own name. Cross-examined by Mr. Brewer —Agents are also in the habit of receiving the amount, unless it is specially arranged otherwise. Verdict for Plaintiff—£lo2. 195., and costs