SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4849, 6 October 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) F. C. KRDLL V. K. G. KNIGHT. This was an action to recover a sum of £65 7s. Id., the amount of a bill of exchange, and interest, £lO 2a. Mr. Travers appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr, Allan for the defence. The latter, though appearing for the defendant, stated the case, owing to the nature of the issue. The facts of the case were as follows: —A schooner was built at Picton by Messrs. Norgrove, and defendant supplied the sails, receivingfrom the owners a promissory note for the amount. The schooner was subsequently sold to Messrs. Krull and Company, who rendered themselves responsible for money due on the timber and a windlass, they agreeing to let the earnings of the vessel go towards the payment of the debt. It appeared that the vessel did not pay,' and that plaintiffs lost considerably by her. When the bill oh account of the sale became due, defendant applied to plaintiffs, who gave him a cheque to meet it, defendant giving two bills at different dates, making up the amount, and those bills were subsequently renewed, as plaintiff stated, from a wish to do the defendant a kindness. The schooner was eventually sold for £6OO. Defendant made application to plaintiffs for payment of the £ll2 due on the sails; but this was refused on the ground that they were not liable, Mr. Krull stating that he had lost considerably on the transaction, but would not take a penny from the proceeds of the working of the vessel,but thattheyshouldgo towards meeting what was duo on the timber, windlass, and sails. One of the bills had been reduced by £2O. Forthe plaintiffs it was contended that defendant had no claim whatever on them for payment of the amount due on the sails, which Messrs. Norgrove were liable for; and it was denied that there was anything to show that the bills had been given by defendant as of the nature of accommodation bills, the plaintiffs reaping no advantage. Por the defence it was held that the arrangement between theparties was that plaintiffs were the persona primarily liable, that the acceptance of the bills was an accommodation acceptance, and that defendant should be held harmless. Mr. Allan also contended that, in the face of the compact that the earnings of the vessel were to go towards payment of the money, the plaintiffs should not have sold the vessel, unless willing to hold themselves responsible for the amount in reference to which the bills had been accepted by plaintiffs.The Chief Justice summed up at length. The jury, after a short retirement, found a verdict for plaintiffs for £75 9s. Id. THE CONTEMPT. OP COUBT CASE. His Honor the Chief Justice said he noticed some gentlemen of the Press were present, and therefore he wished to explain that he believed he had not on the previous day made remarks which he was reported to have made. He had not, or thought he had not, said anything as to whether the charges brought against him were or were not without foundation. He should not have thought it proper to do so. What he had intended to say, and what he believed he had said, was this—that the fact of any person choosing to take a view, whether justifiable or not, of his conduct, and representing that conduct in the proper quarter, would not be a matter for. his observation.

The Court adjourned tiE 10 o’clock next (this) day.