DISTRICT COURT.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2329, 3 September 1880, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

TIMARU—Y ESTERDAY. (Before His Honor Judge Ward). CIVIL CASKS. Guthrie and Larnach v. St. George, claim £53 Is, for goods sold and delivered. The defendant, at the suggestion of His Honor, agreed to a verdict being entered against him for £25. His Honor remarked that from the evidence of Mr and Mrs St. George as to the defendant not having left his home on the evening of the 13th, while the witness Hutchinson stated he had done so, it was a question whether the latter witness should not bo indicted for perjury. Mr White said evidence might be brought forward to contradict their evidence. THIS DAY. J. B. Lindsay v. Baird and Co., claim £IOO, monies paid on deposit for sale of lease. Mr Reid for plaintiff ; Mr Joyce for defendants. The short facts of this case as stated for the plaintiff were that the £IOO, which was now sought to be recovered, was paid by the plaintiff as a deposit for the purchase of the lease of the Railway Hotel at Pleasant Point. An agreement was drawn up in April last that the purchase money for the lease should be £SOO, £IOO down, the remainder to be paid by a bill at one mouth. The slock, Ac., were to be taken at valuation, and also paid for by a bill at one month. The agreement was subsequently altered, and it was arranged that Lindsay should remain in the hotel as a mere servant in charge for the defendants, without salary, until the bill for the £IOO at one month was met. In consequence of the defendants failing to get the license of the hotel transferred to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement, he gave them notice that unless the transfer was made by a certain date the bill would be dishonored. The defendants failed to make the transfer, and the bill was dishonored accordingly. At this stage the case was adjourned for the production of a material witness.

McLcisli v. Mock ;md another. Claim for £2OO damages. Special jury, Mr Hamersley for plaintiff; Mi Hislop for defendants. Before the jury were empannclled, INIi Hislop objected that they had been improperly summoned. His Honor took a note of the objection.

This was a claim for damages for loss alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff through the seizure by the defendants of a flock of sheep, and for the wrongful interference by the defendants with the property of the plaintiff.

The facts of the ease are well known. The plaintiff repealed the evidence given by him on several previous occasions, detailing the purchase of the sheep from Scott, of Hakateremca ; their removal to the paddock at the Washdyke, their seizure by Orr and others ; Orr’s arrest for stealing the sheep, which were then seized by the police, and subsequently taken possession of once more by Orr and his men and takendowuSouth. When he got the sheep back, he considered that they had depreciated in value to the extent of Gd per head, and their recovery from first to last cost him from £lO to £SO. Never had any demand made upon him to give up the sheep prior to their seizure.