SUPREME COURT SITTINGS, Saturday, 7th March, 1846. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CHAPMAN.

New Zealand Spectator and Cook's Strait Guardian, Volume II, Issue 75, 14 March 1846, Page 3

SUPREME COURT SITTINGS, Saturday, 7th March, 1846. BEFORE MR. JUSTICE CHAPMAN.

M'donald v. Mathieson. Same v. Same. These a,ctions were undefended, and verdicts were given for plaintiff. Strang v. Scott. This was an action by the Administrator of Tuhawaiki, commonly called Bloody Jack, against David Scott, on an account due to the estate of this chief. Mr. Hanson, for the plaintiff, proved the two first items of the account, and a verdict was taken fur plaintiff subject to a reference. Don v. Bell. This was an action for £294 : 7s. the balance of account and money paid. Mr. Hanson, for plaintiff, proved the account, shewing a balance of £249 : 75., but as Mr. Couper, to whom £45, as he stated, had been paid by plaintiff on account of defendant, had been called away by the Governor, he was unable to give evidence of snch payment. Mr. King, for the defendant, gave in evidence an admission of plaintiff that the defendant was to have had 18 months from 21st Dec, 1844, to pay the principal money, of which the balance sued for was part. His Honor in summing -up to the Jury told them, that he considered the account stated altered the original agreement between the parties, and that the Jury should find a verdict for the plaintiff, but that they were not bound by his opinion, and might give averdict for the defendant if they differed from him. The Jury retired, and after an absence of five iours were discharged, being unable to agree. This cause came on for trial again on Wednesday, the 11th, when Mr. King, after some discussion, agreed to a verdict for plaintiff with leave to move for a non-suit or new trial.

Wednesday, March 11th, 1846. Before Mr. Justice Chapman, and a Special Jury Collier v. Fitzherbert. Mr. Hanson appeared for plaintiff, Defendant conducted bis case in person. __ * Mr. Hanson stated that this was in the na- ' tare of an action of trover to recover £30, the value -of certain limestone the property of the -plaintiff, taken by defendant for his own use. „-The p&nltiff in 1 March, 1845, went to Amuri in the fiddle Island for the purpose of procuring limestone, about two miles from a whaling station belonging to John Wade or the defendant. The plaintiff employed a person of the name of Cremex to dig out the limestone ; a large quan-

tity was dug out and laid in'heaps on the beach. In the month of Nov. f&llowing; a vessel called the Sarah Jane, employed by defendant, came to Amuri and took away the limestone so heaped up and brought it to Wellington, and the same was sold by defendant who received the money. Another quantity of the limestone was taken away in the month of January last in a vessel called the Susannah Ann belonging to the defendant, which limestone was sent to Taranaki for sale. The plea set up by the defendant was that the ground from whence the limestone was taken was the property of John Wade. In support of the plaintiff's case Mr. Hanson called Richard Andrews, a sailor, formerly on board the Sarah Jane, who stated he was on board when the Sarah Jane went to Amuri in Nov., 1845 ; 12 or 13 tons of limestone were taken from some heaps on the beach at Amuri and put on board and taken as cargo, the ballast then in the vessel having been first discharged ; the vessel proceeded to Port Nicholson with the limestone, which was landed at Clay Point. James Cremer, labourer, proved that he was employed by plaintiff in March, 1845, to go to Amuri to get limestone, and was employed for three months ; plaintiff and himself dug out limestone and threw it up in heaps above the wash of the tide convenient for whale boats to take it away. On his cross-examination the witness could not state how many tons he had quarried out and heaped up ; he had put no marks on the heaps, and had returned to Wellington three months after going down to Amuri ; he had not been down again, and had left no person in charge of the heaps so made by him, nor did he or plaintiff give any notice to the people at the whaling station that the heaps had been collected by him. Thomas Walker and John Bell were then examined but their evidence was not of particular importance. John Plimmer, limeburner, purchased some limestone from Mr. Wade; witness made arrangements with Mr. Fitzherbert for limestone, and bought the limestone in question from Mr. Fitzherbert as Mr. Wade's agent. On his cross-examination witness stated, that one third of the limestone purchased by him had been washed by the sea ; that stone washed by the sea was none the worse for burning; witness produced some specimens : the price of limestone with freight was about £\:bs. per ton ; and the freight would be about £\.

Mr. Fitzherbert, after commenting on the case, and stating that the plaintiff had first made a demand for £10 and then increased it to £30 for the purpose of bringing it into the Supreme Court, called John Wade, — who proved that he formed a whaling station at Amuri ; that this station extended about | of a mile; and that the limestone rocks were included in the station ; witness saw Cremer employed in collecting limestone, and supposed he had collected about CO tons ; was daily in the habit of passing where Cremer was employed ; never saw him digging; his labour consisted in throwing the stones together ; there were no ma) ks by which the heaps could be identified; they were all above high water mark, but one was above high seamark ; witness was at Aniuri the latter end of January last ; the heap above high sea mark was entire; it was exactly the same as when Cremer left it; the other heaps were-par-tially washed away ; the heap might have been marked by stakes; in bad weather no one can walk round the cliffs, and can only walk on the beach where the heap untouched lies ; witness stated that large pieces of the cliffs fall away in wet weather, and that thousands of tons might be picked up; that it was easier to get a boat load by picking the stone up when in the boat than in heaping the stone up; that time and labour were thrown away in heaping up; had seen Cremer only upon two or three occasions collecting stone; he generally spenthistime at the fishery ; witness told Cremer he had no right to go to the place for limestone without his permission. The Jury without leaving the box found a J verdict for the defendant. i