SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5714, 23 July 1879, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Tuesday, July 22. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice, and a Special Jury.) WOOD V. HURLER.

The Court was occupied the whole of yesterday with the evidence for the defence in the above case. Dr. Buller himself, Mr. Lewis, Mr. H. D. Bell. Mr. Hutchison, solicitors, Mr. Tolhurst, Mr. E. Barber, and several other witnesses as to value, gave their evidence; after which Mr. Travers addressed the jury at some length, and Mr. Conolly replied. His Honor summed up very carefully, and the jury retired to consider the issues at 9.25 p.m. After a retirement of two hours and a half the jury returned to the Court a little past midnight, and the foreman (Mr. Lipman Levy) said that on some of the issues they were un'animous, and on others only three-fourths -of the jury had agreed, or were likely to, if shut up for a month. Counsel on both sides having consented to accept the verdict, as if unanimous, the replies to the fifty-two issues were read out by the Registrar, a large number of them having been previously admitted by defendant’s counsel. The finding of the jury is substantially in favor of- the plaintiff, on the ground that he did not understand the true purport of the deeds executed by him, although there was no intentional misrepresentation on the part of the defendant, and no_ actual fraud. The foreman added that on this point the jury were from the first unanimous. After the verdict on the issues had been recorded, his Honor said that he entirely concurred in the view taken by this jury, and that it was a matter of extreme gratification to himself, as it must be to all parties concerned, that Dr. Buller’s professional character was in no way affected or any improper conduct imputed to him in relation to the matter. Mr. Levy said ; I wish to repeat, your Honor, that the jury were quite unanimous throughout that there was no intentional misrepresentation, and no fraud whatever on the part of the defendant. The foreman then asked that two or three of the special jurors who had been sitting for two days might be excused from further attendance, after which the Court was ordered to stand adjourned till Wednesday, at 10 a.xm