SUPREME COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2264, 19 June 1880, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

[Before His Honor Judge Johnston and a Common Jury.]

Civil, CASES. For assessment of damages by the jury.

N. M. and A. Co. v. Collins

Mr Perry appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr Hamersley appeared for the defendant.

In this case the plaintiff sought to recover a combine and threshing machine, gear, and a water cart, (or their value), which it was alleged were wrongfully detained by the defendant, ft appeared that the defendant borrowed the machine from one Allen, to whom if formerly belonged, and who had previously executed a bill of sale over it to the N. M. and A. Co.

In opening his case to the jury, Mr Perry said that what they had to determine was a mere question of damages to be paid for the detention of tlie machine with its extras since notice had been given, requesting its return ; or of the amount to be paid for its de. teutiou if not returned. Ho would call.

Walter Allen station manager, residing at Three Springs, who deposed that he knew the defendant Collins, and also knew the combimc, engine, gear, and water cart detained. Originally purchased the combine at the price of AGOO. The purchase was made two years ago. Had seen it since Collins had had it, and it had in witness’ opinion deteriorated at the rate of from AJO to AGO per year. The water cart cost witness Aid additional. This would have deteriorated £2 perhaps in value. By his Honor —Lcut the combine to Collins to dosome thrashing in December of last year. At tins time it was subject to a bill of sale ov-r it to the N.M.A. Companv. By Mr Perry—The X.M.A. Co. demanded the combine in March, and in consequence witness demanded the machine from Collins. Handed Collins a letter from Messrs Perry and Perry, solicitors, acting for the company, demanding tiic return of the combine. Collins had been applying the machine to his own use ever since, and refused to deliver it up. The clear profit on such a machine would be £2O per week. By Mr Hamersley—Collins paid witness AdO the year before for the use of the machine during the season. The crop last year was not nearly so large as it was this year, and lienee the diJl'erencc in the value of the services rendered by the machine in the former season.

Duncan McKiiy .stated that ho was living at Fairlie Creek. Was living then; last year as well as this year. A threshing machine would earn more this year than last. Could hardly say what the dill’erenee would he.

Council having addressed the jury, Mis Honor proceeded to sum up. This was as they had heard, merely a question of damages. Firstly, as to the value of the machine, and secondly, for the detention of the same.

The jury, after being absent for some time, returned into Court with a verdict for the plaintiffs, hut merely for the detention of the machine, and the deterioration it has suffered since the defendant had it. These they assessed at £75. They were directed to re-consider their verdict, in order to (ix (he value of (ho machine, in case it should not bo delivered up at all. They subsequently returned a verdict as above, adding that the machine was to be returned, or the defendant to pay £573, as its value, which allows £132 for wear and tear before it got into the defendant’s hands. -FKXTOX V. IXXKS. Damages £SOO, Mr Austin for the plaintiff; Mr Hamerslcy appeared for the defendant. The claim was partly for wages but chiefly for damages sustained through a prosecution for alleged embezzlement while plaintiff was managing the Caledonian Hotel at Temuka, on behalf of [nnos —a Christchurch brewer The circumstances have already been fully reported. The jury after 20 minutes consideration returned a verdict for £75.