SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5408, 27 July 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Fjridav, July. 26. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond and a special jury.) MCDONALD. V.'GUILDFORD. The hearing of this case was resumed. The defendant was recalled,' and Messrs. Efrost, Joseph Dempsey, ’and William Wiggins were examined on behalf of. defendant. . Counsel on both sides having addressed tho jury, his Honor summed up, and the jury returned.the following answers to the issues submitted to them : 1. Was the plaintiff on or about the 22ud day of October, 1877, carrying on the trade of a saddler and manufacturer of harness at his shop on Lambfcon-quay in tho declaration mentioned ?—Yes. . . 2. Did the defendant on or about the said 22nd day of October, 1877, break and enter tho said shop and dwelling-house of the plaintiff, and take and carry away the fixtures and goods therefrom, and dxpel the plaintiff and his • family therefrom, as iu the first count of the declaration alleged ?—Yes, under terms of -bill of sale. 3. Were tho said fixtures and goods the property of the plaintiff.at the time of the said entry and seizure?—Secured under bill of sale to defendant, 4. What was tho value of the fixtures and goods seized and taken away by the defendant ? —£lol3 17s, 3d., wholesale value. 5; Did the defendant. convert to his own use the said fixtures and goods under an unfounded claim that he was then entitled to seize tho same ?—No. 6. Was the plaintiff theteby annoyed, prejudiced, injured, and disturbed in carrying on his said trade, and was he in consequence of the said entry, seizure, and conversion believed by customers of the plaintiff in the way of his trade and others to’ be incapable of carrying on, and to have ceased to carry on, his said trade, and to bo insolvent ?—Yea, owing to his inability to meet the demands made upon him by the bill of sale. 7. Did the plaintiff execute to the defendant a bill of sale over the said goods and chattels on the 26th day of July, 1877 ? Yes, 8. .Were the entry of the defendant upon the said shop and dwelling-house, and seizure and sale of the fixtures and goods of the plaintiff, authorised by the said bill of sale, ami-were the said entry, seizure, and sale duly made in ac-. cordance with, and in pursuance of, the provisions of the said bill of sale ?—Yes. 9. Did the defendant cause to be delivered : to the plaintiff a statement showing that the sum of £1460 3s, was due by the plaintiff to the defendant, together with tho note in tho second paragraph of , the third plea set out, and if so, when and where, and was the said sura of £1460 35., or' any and what sum' then * due by the plaintiff to . the defendant ?—Yes ; account delivered on or about 20th August, 1877. Also—No ; but £1070,155. Dd.

10, Did tho defendant soil the goods and •chattels seized by him in an improvident and improper manner ?—No. ; ■ : ,

11, Did tho defendant sell tho said goods and chattels by private .contract for prices less than could have been r obtained if a fair and proper sale of tho same had been held ?—No. 12. What,damages if any h the plaintiff entitled to recover from tho defendant ?—One shilling. On Mr. Allan’s application, his Honor certified that the case was proper to bo tried by a special jury. .. , Mr. Bell applied for a certificate tor costs/ but the Judge, after consideration, declined to so certify. This amounts to a verdict for plaintiff for one shilling. Mr, Allan, after the verdict was found, in reference to the accounts said I hope what I’iß going to say won’t bo published-; hut I think a lawyer should always go into a commercial office for a year or two for training.' His Honor laughingly said he thought that a good suggestion.