SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 21, 17 June 1871, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

Monday, 12th June. ; hi (SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS). (Before Mr Justice Johnston and a Common Jury.) TAYLOR AND ANOTHER V. JORDAN AS.D ANOTHER. : ;. Mr Allan, with Mr Quick, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Travers, with Mr Ollivier, for the defendant. Before proceeding with the case Mr Travers applied to plead by way of after plea in bar, to stay proceedings. His Honor refused to alter the plea. Mr Travers then stated the defence to the action. The defendants were formerly partners in a sheep station at Rangitikei, and had large dealings with Taylor and Watt, merchants, of Wanganui, to whom they owed a sum of £1446 16s 6d. An action was commenced by the plaintiffs for tho recovery of the money, and "lifter its commencement, Jordan and Tagg gave plaintiffs notice that they had dissolved partnership, Tagg taking over the debts of the firm. Taylor and Watt were anxious to obtain payment, and one of the partners, Tagg, was seized on a writ and placed in gaol. It was not disputed that a quantity of produce belonging to defendants was at that time in possession of plaintiffs and it was agi*eed that plaintiffs were to sell this produce and place the proceeds to the account of the defendants. Tagg did not like being in gaol and was very anxious to be released from custody. Ho made proposals to plaintiffs to settle their claim by taking the produce for ££46 16s 6d, leaving a balance of £I,OOO, for which he gave a bill, drawn on aMr Clappison, of London. These amounts were to go in liquidation of the whole claim of plaintiffs upon defendants. Jordan and Tagg, the defendants, having dissolved partnershp, and Tagg having been releasesd from custody, proceeded to England. The defendant Jordan oontended that these facts, if established, were sufficient to defeat the action as against him. The jury had merely to consider certain facts, the chief of which would bo whether the defendant became indebted to plaintiffs before their dissolution, and whether the plaintiffs knew of the dissolution of partnership between the defendants. The whole matter for the plaintiffs had been placed in the hands of Messrs Brandon and Quick, who had conducted all negotiations in the matter with Mr Ollivier. J?. M. Ollivier examined : I am solicitor for the defendant Jordan. I have acted for the defendant Tagg also, but in matters having nothing to do with this ?ction. All negotiations in connection with the case took plaice with Messrs Brandon and Quick. Tagg was arrested before the negotiations were entered into. The result of these negotiations was the handing over of certain produce, which they held on account of defendents, and in the giving of certain drafts by Tagg on a Mr Clappison of London. The draft was for £IOOO There was also a mortgage given by Tagg. It was understood by tho giving of these securities that he was to be released from custody. The property was dealt with in this matter as if it was Tagg's sole property. Thi produce belonging to defendants in the possession of plaintiffs was estimated at £SOO, and it, was considered that £IOOO would settle the difference. The draft produced for £IOOO is the one given by Tagg as security for the 61003

Cross-examined by Mr Allen : Mr Tagg was arrested, as it was understood that he was about to leave the colony. I undertook to procure bail for Tagg. There was nc>distinct stipulation that the arrangement was to be either in lieu of bail or as final settlement of the claim of Taylor and Watt. It was not stated that these documents were given merely as bail. I do not remember receiving any notice that the bill had not been paid, nor did I receive any acknowledgment of the complete discharge of the debt. This was the case for the defendant. • Mr Allan summed up the facts for the plaintiffs case, and called William Henry Quick, solicitor, examined by Mr Allan : Messrs Brandon and Quick acted for Taylor and Watt in the case against Tagg. I had several interviews with Mr Ollivier with reference to the release of Mr Tagg from custody. The negociations had no other object, and the securities were given to procure his release. Tagg being very anxious to get out of gaol, tho arrangements were made with that object, and the bill was not given in discharge of the debt. Cross-examined by Mr Travers: I looked upon the arrangement as being in the main merely for the release of Tagg from gaol. Mr Allan said the question which the jury had to decide was whether Mr Quick, acting for his clients, Messrs Tayldr* & Watt, had agreed to accept the wool and skins, and the bill of exchange as full payment to stay all proceedings, because that was in effect what was stated in the various paragraphs in the pleadings. Mr Olivier had said in his evidence that he could not say whethor the handing over of the wool and hides, and the giving of the bill, was a final settlement of the matter>

That was almost an admission that there was no staying of the proceedings. The evidence taken went to show that Tagg could not.get bail for his release from gaol, and hadoffered to give a bill merely as a kind of security. If the plaintiffs had taken the bill in full payment, they would have had the document properly drawn up and testified to. It was for the jury to find, upon these proceedings, whether the bill of exchange was taken as payment, and whether the proceedings ought to be stayed. He put it to the jury whether as men of business, any man, either lawyer or layman, would have taken such securities, and given clearances for such an amount. Mr Travers having replied, His Honor said' the real question was whether in a case where one of two partners

has been arrested on mesne process, and the

party arresting him releases him upon terms, x whether that holds good as regards the other partner to release him from debt. Mr Quick said in his evidence that the whole negotiation was not for the purpose of relieving Tagg, but merely for the purpose of enabling him to come out of prison,, and go beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, leaving some security behind him. What the jury had to consider was, was the defence set up by Jordan a sufficient discharge on his part for the money owing to Messrs Taylor & Watt. The jury having retired, returned into Court with a verdict, for the plaintiffs on the I3th issue, " To what amount is plaintiff entitled," £1446 16s 6d. Mr Allan gave notice of his intention to apply to enter up judgment; and it was ultimately agreed that the case should como on for argument at the next Banco sittings of the . Court. The Court then adjourned.