DISTRICT COURT.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 260, 31 March 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Thos. Beckham, Esq.,) District Judge.) The following is an abridged report from the Evening Star of the 22nd inst. -.— SIDDONS V. H. H. LUSK. Damages £lOO, and expenses. Mr. Rees for the plaintiff, and Mr. McCormick for the defendant. Mr. Rees on opening the case said this was an action for damages brought, by the plaintiff, a settler, against the defendant, who was Provincial Secretary at the time the events occurred which induced the action. In August, 1872, plaintiff bought a piece of Government, land, aud paid the deposit at Gisborne. He afterwards paid the balance to Mr. Skipworth for Mr. Lusk, who did not account for it to the Government, and consequently the purchase was not recognised. The plaintiff now claimed £lOO for the loss he sustained in not getting his title to the land. Mr. Lusk had paid over the disputed amount just before the present summons was issued. James Siddons, the plaintiff, deposed he was a settler. He recollected attending a laud sale at Gisborne in August, 1872. Mr. Lusk was there acting as auctioneer for the Government. Witness purchased No 21 allotment for £TOlOs. He paid a deposit or one quarter in accordance with the conditions of the sale. Mr. Lusk said he was going away by the steamer, and the balance would have to 'be paid before the 24tli September. Some party asked Mr. Lusk how if there was no communication with Auckland during that time. He replied if it was paid Io the R.M., or his clerk, their receipt would be sufficient. He was quite clear on that point. He paid the balance through Mr. Skipworth, the clerk of the Court, on the 20th September. (Receiptproduced.) Not feeling satisfied with Skipworth’s receipt, he asked Mr. Lusk to give him a printed form -for the receipt. Mr. Lusk assured him it was quite sufficient, and his Crown Grant would be issued in the regular way. When the other Crown Grants were issued witness did not get his. In October, 1824, he received an offer for the land and house. He sold it and give possession, never doubting that the Crown (riant would be received all right. He showed the receipt to Mr. Lusk when he was uneasy about it at, the second land sa'e. The first indication of any dispute I e had was when he heard from Mr, Turion, the Commissioner at Napier, sending him the transfer, that the land did not belong to witness, as he had not paid for it. One telegram was to Major Green, the laud revenue receiver in Auckland, lhe

telegram produced was the reply; October 23rd, 1872 : “ Receipts signed aud forwarded September, 1872. Will see to-morrow who received it." Mr. Beckham said it was evident from this jfchat Major Green allowed that the money was received or there could be no receipts. Mr. Rees: Here is a telegram received on the 26tth : “No receipts can be sent; final payment not received from you.” His Honor: this implies thaj. ’4he balance had not been paid? j J Witness: After receiving the last . t.el.egram_yyi.! npss,. .returned . .to .GAbQl'pe, He received a letter from Major Green which induced him to go to Auckland. Tile letter Stated that the balance of the money had not been .received.... Mr. Rice recollected something about the registered letter which enclosed the money, because there had been some enquiries about it at the Post Office., Mr. Lusk remembered it when Mr. Rice reminded him of it, but he said there was no money in it. Had there been money’ in the letter he said he must have paid it to Major Green or Dr. Pollen. Major Green looked over the accounts but could find no entry of the money. Mr. Rice and Mr. Sheehan contrived to get him allowed to pay the purchase money (£7 17s 6d) over again in order to get the Crown Grant. Mr. Skipworth could give him no information as to how he forwarded the money, whether by cheque or P.O. order. Mr. MacCormick said he was instructed that the letter written by Mr. Skipworth was burnt in the Provincial offices fire. He had a copy pi it, which he believed could not be disputed. The letter was read, and stated that the sender enclosed a cheque of Mr. Read, of Poverty Bay, for £l7 12s 6d, being the balance of purchase for lots 21 and 129 of township of Gisborne. Witness continued: He ascertained that the cheque had been received by Mr. Lusk.

Mr. MacCormick said they admitted the money must have been paid into Mr. Lusk’s account, al though they admitted no knowledge of it at the time. Air. MacCormick having stated the case for the defendant, called Mr. Lusk, who deposed that in answer to an enquiry as to how the balance of the purchase money should be paid, and what would happen in the event of the conditions of sale not being complied with, and the money paid within a month, he said he was sure the .Government would not lake advantage of any irregularity in the communication, and if that money were forwarded to Auckland within a reasonable time it would be sufficient. He did not tell the plaintiff or any of other purchasers that if the balances were paid to the Resident Magistrate at Gisborne or his clerk their receipt would be sufficient. He could not have authorised Mr. Skipworth to act as agent, for that gentleman was not at Gisborne at the time. Mr. Skipworth was in the habit of forwarding money to the office in Auckland, but witness was not aware that he forwarded the balance of plaintiff’s purchase money. It. was Mr. Bice’s duty to pay the money into witness’s hands, who paid it to Dr. Pollen. Mr. Rice, as part of his duty, would open letters addressed to the Provincial Secretary. Witness had no recollection of,the receipt of any letter from Skipworth, forwarding the £7 17s 6d on account of Siddons. He had been informed by Dr. Pollen that the £7 17s 6d had beeen paid twice, and by his instructions witness repaid Siddons £7 17s 6d. Cross-examined by Mr. Rees: He was prepared to state absolutely’ that he di 1 not make use of any words with regard to the payment of the money to the Resident Magistrate, or Mr. Skipworth. He believed Skipworth did forward some other sums received by him for purchases at the sale. He did not know who paid lhe cheque for £l7 12s 6d into his account. He never saw the cheque, and did not know when it was received in Auckland. Did not think Mr. Rice paid itin. Vincent E. Rico, chief clerk in the Superintendent's office, colroborated the evidence of Mr. Lusk. The Resident Magistrate who was present said they could leave their money with Mr, Skipworth, clerk of the Court, for transmission to the Receiver of Revenue. Mr. Lusk said it did not matter through whom the money was sent so long as it bore evidence of having been remitted within the month required by the conditions of sale. Nothing was said by Mr. Lusk to the effect that if the balances were paid to either the Resident Magistrate or his clerk, their receipt would be sufficient, The original of Mr. Skipworth’s letter was burnt. To the best of his belief the letter was forwarded from Gisborne on the 30th Sept. Cross-examined by Mr . Rees: The letter was received in Auckland on the 18th October, and to the best of wilness’s belief, it bore evidence of not having been posted within the required time. He was under the impression that he had handed lhe cheque for £l7 12s 6d to Mr. Lusk, and told him it was another late payment from Gisborne, and would have to be sent to Dr. Pollen as the books were closed. But he had since been told by Mr. Lusk thatthe money did not pass throngh his hands. All the balances forwarded from Gisborne were, by an arrangement with Dr. Pollen, paid into an account in Mr. Lusk’s name to be afterwards transferred. This concluded the case. At the close of theaddress of counsel. His Honorreserved judgment until next Court day.

ERGOT IN RYE GRASS: POISON OE CALVES. We clip the following from the Southern Cross of the 23rd .of March :— To the Editor, Sir,-el send you a scrap for your paper. Mr. Poster, the owner of the calves, informs me that, if it had not been for “ Old Colonial’s” paragraphs in the Cross on “ Ergot,” he would not have known what caused the poisoning symptoms in the calves.—l am, &c., ( —j_ *......., f L. Marbh 22, tB7.sr’ t. A... — Near St. John’s College, West Tamaki. Mr."’Foster has TT calves' from' ’4 to 7 months’ old—all, weaned except one—they- were reared in a paddock laid down to grass last autumn. Three weeks ago the following symptoms were observed : -i-Wheu quietly grazing one would occasionally show a spasmodic affection, stagger about,,...fall downy-and remain prostrate [for a feW -minhtes. Again, when suddenly [disturbed, or driven quickly a short distance, the calves would be attacked in the manner before described. The calves were quite regular in their evacuations, and were in good condition Two working horses were grazed (depastured) in the paddock with the calves, but it was observed that the horses ate the short grass, and the calves topped the rye-grass. The horses were not affected. When the owner discovered that there was a large quantity of ergot in the field, he physicked the calves, and removed them to older pasture. The calves are now slowly recovering. The calves have been out of the ergot fields about ten days, but they still have a paculiar shake in the head —-something like palsy in the human being,—and have a staggering gait when moving about.