SUPREME COURT.

Southern Cross, Volume 1, Issue 27, 30 September 1893, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

The September sittings opened at Invercargill on Tuesday, before His Honour Mr Justice Williams. The criminal cases were quickly disposed, of. In the case of a young man named James Tulloch, who had been committed for trial for stealing £3O from his mother’s hotel, the Grand Jury returned no bill. Henry Upsdale, charged with attempting to drown himself in Lake Wakatipu, was discharged on entering into his own recognisance in the sum of L 25 to come up for judgment when called upon.—A boy named David McKay, whose father is dead, and whose mother is in the Lunatic Asylum, and who is himself rather weak-minded, pleaded guilty to setting fire to a stack of straw at Drummond, and was sentenced to six weeks’ imprisonment—arrangements to be made to have him admitted to the Industrial school at an early date.— David Maitland, a lad of 16, was sentenced to six months’ hard labour and a flogging for assaulting a girl at Chatton. The first case on the civil side was that of T. C. Ellis v. J. Ashbury. Mr Harvey, with him Mr Battray, appeared for the plaintiff ; the defendant, who lives in London, was not represented by any counsel. This was an action on three promissory notes given by the defendant to John Ohute Ellis, of Merrivale, and endorsed by him to Thomas Chute Ellis, the plaintiff. The notes were given in payment of the balance of the original purchase money of the Merrivale estate, the interest being 8 per cent. The amounts of the notes were £124 5s 7d, £3824 Is Id, and £ 2 2s 9d respectively. The statement of defence filed was (1) that John Jerome Zimmer (formerly defendant’s agent) had no authority to sign the promissory notes on his behalf; (2) that no consideration passed between Thomas Chute Ellis and J ohn Chute Ellis. Defendant also alleged that he was taking proceedings in the English courts to •et aside the original purchase of Merrivale on the ground of fraud. After hearing the evidence for the plaintiff the jury returned a verdict for the amount claimed, with interest and costs. His Honour, in summing up, commented strongly on the conduct of defendant ; he had thrown every obstacle in the way of plaintiff, even to making, him go to court to prove his case when he (defendant) found himself beaten on the law points when the case was brought before the Privy Council. The same plaintiff also sued the defendant on five promissory notes, the main one being for £791 for balance of wheat and oats supplied, and obtained a verdict for the amount, with costs. A seaman named Andreas Jansberg sued A. Cross, senr., for LIOO damages. He alleged in effect that the defendant’s son had cut him with a razor after a quarrel at the Bluff, inflicting severe wounds, and that the defendant had promised to compensate him if he did not prosecute his son, but had failed to do so. After hearing evidence the jury found for the plaintiff for L3O, and costs on the E.M. court g Ca l e .—Mr Majalister appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Solomon for the defendant. Mary Elliott v. Joseph Martin was a claim of L2OO damages for the alleged seduction by defendant of plaintiff’s daughter. —Mr Macalister for appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Solomon for the defendant. —At the close of the case" the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for LI 5 and costs. [ln the course of his summing up His Honour stated that in an action of this kind in the Supreme Court there was no absolute necessity for corroborative evidence, though it was expedient that there should be some.

It is reported that it is possible application will be made for a new trial on the ground of misdirection, as section eight..of the. Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1885, proves that a plaintiff shall not recover unless the testimony of the person seduced is corroborated by some other material evidence of such seduction.] T. J. Warren v. GK E. Tucker was an action for the recovery of £SOO damages caused by alleged illegal distraint for rent. —Mr Wade for plaintiff; Mr Solomonwith him Mr Harvey, for defendant. The only issue put to the jury by his Honour was whether there was an agreement between the parties, whereby Warren was to pay 30s a week rental; and the jury found that there was. Judgment was given for defendant for £24, amount of rent, and for possession of the premises, costs on the lowest scale ; and for plaintiff for £2O, value of meat seized under distraint; costs on the R.M. Court scale. When we went to press the case of Francis Jack v. W. Egerton, a claim for £IOO damages arising out of disputed sawmill rights at Winton, was being heard