Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5126, 28 August 1877, Page 2

During yesterday a good deal of exciting war news arrived by telegraph, and was duly published by us in the form of extras, which were purchased by the public with an eagerness that'showed the interest taken in the struggle between Turk and Russian. The news mostly announced victory for the Russians, and that from Mr. Miohie, Agent-General for Victoria, betrayed. a strong philo-Russian tendency. But date in the evening the truth came out in a telegram, which will be found in this morning’s issue of the Ne>v Zealand Times, which reversed the news received during the day, and quite confirmed the opinion published by us yesterday, that the balance of success would after all be found to incline against the invaders of Bulgaria. It is now evident that Sulieman Bey has been hammering away at the Russiansin ithe Shipka' Pass untilhehas concentrated their attention and all their available forces on that point. By this means he has thrown his right wing unopposed across the Balkans at a point further to the east; and is advancing upon Gabrova; in other words, threatens the enemy in flank, whilst at the same time the Turks, victorious at Bski Djnraa, are advancing upon the Russian lineof communication with the Danube at Nioopolis, and have forceij their foe hack to Sultanskoi. With the operations mentioned as having taken plape at Widin, where the Turks are trying to cross the Danube, taken in- connection with the circumstances named, it is no wonder that the English Press pronounces the Russian-' position in Bulgaria critical. The telegram received by us at an early hour this morning fully bears out the above. remarks, and shows that the cause of the Russians is lost in Europe as it is in Asia." ',, At the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Mastorton lately a case of a somewhat peculiar character iyas, heard. The plaintiff, a Mrs.'Hacker, sued Mr. G. S. W, Dalrymple, a member of the late firm of Dalrymple and Co., to rCoover £3O, being the balance of the purchase money of land sold by the firm as agents for the plaintiff. Mr.. Bunny appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant was represented at

the commencement of the case by Mr. Beetham, who withdrew from it at the close of the examination of Mrs. Hacker. The News Letter gives the following report of the facts of the case as adduced in evidence :—“ A certain piece of laud was placed in the hands of defendants by plaintiff for sale at a reserve of £9O. Some time elapsing and the sale not being effected, plaintiff requiring some ready money urgently,. told , defendant-to push on the sale, and if sold by a certain day they might take £6O if they could not get more, Afterwards she instructed defendant -not to , sell under £9O. Subsequently, on the 20th October, 1876, Dalrymple waited upon plaintiff and asked if she would take £6O for the land. This she agreed to take, believing no higher price could be obtained. As a matter of fact, defendant had previously (that same morning) sold the land to James Fitzgerald for £100; £6O’cash, and four bills. On the day named, Mr. Dalrymple waited upon the plaintiff (first calling oh Dr. Hosking, J.P., and requesting him to attend to witness’the signing of a deed), and informed plaintiff that he had sold the land for £6O. He produced a deed, which, he folded down in snob a manner as to conceal the contents, and requested plaintiff to sign. In her evidence plaintiff stated that the deed was not read to her, nor did she read it, being engaged in conversation with Dr. Hosking at the time. She signed under the impression that the deed was in favor of a third party, and not suspecting anything wrong. Plaintiff had no idea that she was selling to Forbes, Dalrymple, and Co., but believed them to be acting as her agents in the sale. Defendant, took the deed and handed plaintiff a cheque signed Forbes, Dalrymple, and Co. for £6O. Plaintiff, noticing the name, looked up and said enquiringly, ‘ Forbes, Dalrymple, and Co. !’ upon which defendant said, ‘Yes, we advance you the money as the amount is paid in hills and other negotiable paper,’ or words to that effect. He also said that she would see it was marked ‘ correct' and initialed by the banker. The cheque was duly • cashed. On October 27th, at the expressed desire of Fitzgerald, Mr. Bunny was instructed to prepare the transfer from Forbes, Dalrymple and Co. to him, the original purchase money of £IOO being, subsequently altered to £9O. The defendant in his evidence in Court swore positively that he had read the deed to Mrs. Hacker in the presence of Dr. Hosking. The latter gentleman had been sent for to . the Forty-Mile Bush about ten minutes before this statement of defendent. The R.M. took down defendant’s words, and he again solemnly swore to them, but in cross-examination by Mr. Bunny he first qualified the statement and afterwards said he thought Dr. Hosking might have been conversing with plaintiff’s sister outside the room at the time. It appears, however, that plaintiff's sister was not present during any of the proceedings. Counsel for the plaintiff addressed the Court at some length, quoting many cases bearing upon this one, which he characterised as a gross breach of trust. His Worship, in delivering judgment, said that owing to the lateness of the hour (12 p.m.) he would not dwell,at any length on the case. He considered it fully proved, and gave a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with interest and costs, and ordered immediate payment. The Court was literally crowded during the proceedings. •