SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5400, 18 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Wednesday, Jdly 17. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond and a special jury.) The Court re-opened at ten o’clock, T y. BUCKRIDGE V. WARDELL.

The hearing of this case was resumed. - Mr. Izard addressed the jury on behalf of the defendant. He submitted there was no evidence whatever to show that the defendant knew, at the time he took the conveyance of this property, that the plaintiff had any claim to the land. Neither was there any evidence that the defendant was aware that anyone else had a claim to the property. The jury had evidence before them that both Ingley and Wardell had bought without any notice of a claim to the property by the plaintiff. Parsons, or any other person. Ingley was the person who bought the land and paid the money, and practically nothing was heard of Parsons until October, 1876, after Wardell had been placed on the register as owner of the property. He would ask the jury to recollect the demeanor of Alzdorf in the. box, and the contradictory, shuffling, and evasive answers he gave to ques--* tions put to him, and he would ask them tq treat that witness’s evidence as thoroughly unreliable. A. written document was put in to prove how unreliable Alzdorf’s evidence was. With reference to the alleged sale by Parsons' to Buckridge, it appeared to him to be a “ cooked” affair altogether, Buckridge stated that he paid the money to Parsons in 1874, and that he got a receipt, which he handed to his solicitor before the commencement of the case. That receipt was not forthcoming. But even supposing a receipt had been given as stated, where was the necessity for the plaintiff getting Parsons in 1876 to sit down and write an admission that the money had been paid in 1874. It seemed to him. to be an attempt to manufacture evidence for the purposes of au approaching trial, and be, could not for a moment believe that twelve intelligent men would believe the story about the payment of the money and the receipt in 1874. He thought he had shown good grounds for the 1 jury discrediting the evidence given by Alzdorf, and disbelieving the statements of the plaintiff as to the transactions in -1874 and 1876. The case for the plaintiff rested on the evidence of three tainted witnesses; that for the defendant on the unshaken testimony of Ingley, supported by Mr. Burling and other witnesses. Mr. Barton, for the plaintiff, called the attention of the jury to the fact that the £95 which the. defendant said be paid for this laud had never reached Ingley. Ingley stated most distinctly that he had not been paid the money, the fact being that it had never passed beyond the hands of Mr. Beard, who was Mr. Wardell’s agent. Had Parsons been alive, there would have been no necessity to call Alzdorf, but being deceased, it was. necessary to call Alzdorf to prove by a document produced that he had parted with his interest, in this land to Parsons, who subsequently disposed of it to the plaintiff. With regard to the evidence given by Ingley, scarcely a.word of it was the truth. How a mau could relate a conversation that occurred twenty years ago in the way Ingley narrated it, displayed the greatest feat of memory that he had ever heard of 'in or out of New Zealand. The jury would bear in mind the extraordinary particularity of the story of twenty years ago, as told by Ingley, and, as sensible men of business, determine what amount pf credibility was to be. attached to it. In considering-this part of the ‘evidence, he would ask the. jury whether they could recollect what conversation occurred at any business transaction they might have been engaged in twenty years ago ? It was absurd to suppose they could, and detail it with the degree of particularity that characterised Ingley’s narrative. And now with regard to the action itself, the whole evidence tended to show that the defendant had purchased a chose in action, and was therefore subject to all the equities. Everybody in the transaction knew that they were dealing with a shaky matter. £5 was paid to Ingley on account, as the document showed, and the balance was to be given to Ingley “on the due execution of the deed, with a clear title,” &c. Mr. Wardell had only risked £5, because he knew it was a shaky transaction. If the jury were to find a verdict for the defendant in this case, it would result in the unsettling of every title in the whole colony. In the case of every mau who had ■ some* little flaw in bis iitle, a couple of lawyers and other men might go poking about and picking at it, until they brought au action with a view to obtaining the property, and making a division. If they did away with the good old principles laid down by their forefathers, and admitted the principle that any man might bring an action, they would open the door to any amount o! swindling, wrong, and injustice, and whenever juries were abolished everything would be left to land speculators, land sharks, and rings. It was consoling, however, to think that such a dreadful state of affairs would mot be felt fortwo or three generations after the jury and himself had passed away. His Honor said that as he had an opportunity of going through the pleadings, his charge would not be so long as would have been the case if they bad not adjourned on the previous evening. He would therefore address himself immediately to the issues, giving such directions to the jury as were necessary with regard to those issues involving points of law; of course the questions of fact would be left entirely to the jury. His Honor then proceeded through the issues seriatim with great care and minuteness.

The jury retired at 6.20 p.m., and after an absence of nearly two hours, returned into Court with answers to all the issues—upwards of thirty in number. Practically, it was a verdict for the plaintiff. Mr. Barton asked bis Honor to certify that it was a proper case for a special jury. His Honor certified accordingly. . The jury were then, discharged, his Honor remarking that they were deserving of the thanks of the prublio for the attention which they had given to this case. The Court then adjourned until 10 a.m, on Friday next ■