Wilson v. Chetham was settled. Peacock v. Eagar.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume I, Issue 25, 29 March 1845, Page 3

Wilson v. Chetham was settled. Peacock v. Eagar.

Action to recover damages for the wrongful conversion of certain flour, suga^, &c, the property of plaintiff. It appeared that the defendant had obtained of one Morgan, then an agent of plantiff's,. the property in question, by alleging that he had been applied to to provide for a draft on Mr. Peacock, but which Mr. Peacock had refused to accept. The defendant sold the goods and held the proceeds, but they had realised much less than the invoice price. The plaintiff would not ratify the sale, and sued in trover for the full value rather than for the money had and received for the net proceeds. Mr. Ross submitted that a conversion was not shewD, but the learned Judge thought the documentary evidence (chiefly letters of the parties) was ambiguous in its language, and he objected to the withdrawal of the evidence from the Jury. He then explained to the Jury the distinction between the two forms of action, and instructed them what would constitute a conversion, and left it to them to say whether the defendant had dealt wrongfully with the goods, or whether the sale was within the scope of his authority. The Jusy retired for some time, and having returned into Court, found for the plaintiff — damages £162 17s. 2d. (In delivering their verdict, the Jury handed in a written memorandum—" verdict for plaintiff, £162 17s. 2d. ; plaintiff to pay the costs of the trial." Mr. Justice Chapman said, gentlemed, " you have no authority over costs." And the Registrar here put the usual question to the Jury, apparently reading from the paper, " gentlemen, you find for the plaintiff, damages £162 17s. 2d. ?" It is doubtful whether the foreman assented, but certainly he did not object, and the verdict was recorded. On Monday Mr. Ross mentioned the subject to the Judge, and stated that he was prepared to shew that the verdict did not fulfil the intentions of the Jury. Mr. Justice Chapman intimated that Mr. Ross had better consider the course which it would be proper to take, and move on the first motion day, or as soon after as might be convenient.) Mr. Hanson for plaintifl, and Mr. Ross for defendant. Alzdorf v. Partridge. Action by indorsee against the drawer of a bill of exchauge for £27 10s. on F. V. Martin, and accepted by him. The plea denial notice of dishonour. A witness was called who proved the notice, and the Jury found for plaintiff, £27 10s. Mr. Hanson for plaintiff, Mr. Brandon for defendant.