SATURDAY, JANUARY 15.

Southland Times, Issue 1197, 18 January 1870, Page 2

SATURDAY, JANUARY 15.

The Court resumed this morniag at 10 o'clock. Mr Harvey having briefly outlined the case for the defence, called John M'Pherson, agent for the defendant, whose evidence extended to • preat length. The principal points sought to be established were that plaintiff was himself mainly responsible for the delay, being the supervisor of the works ; that the slow progress made by the cattle was owing to the prevalence of disease, and that the trouble incurred in keeping them on the ground was only what was experienced with stock brought on to a new run. With regard to the sheep it was urged that the evidence for the plaintiff itself showed the loss from straying had occurred when the sheep were depastured on different ground altogether, when the presence or absence of the said boundary fen^e could have nothing to do with them. The witness also denied that any claim for damages had ever been mentioned to him, or complaints male until the date of plaintiff's letter to Mr Francis, late in the course of the events narrated. Further, that stoppages in the work of fencing had been caused by plaintiff's own action, and by alterations on the original plan suggested by him. Four or five of the fencing contractors were produced to show the cause of delay, their statements going to show tHafe plaintiff had made certain proposals for alterations, and the substitution of one kind of fence for another. It did not appear, however, that anything was done by him on his own responsibility, or without the consent and sanction of defendant's agent, the proposed deviations being ultimately abandoned in favor of the original specifications. One op two witnesses, experienced in the management of stock, and acquainted with the district, were also put in the box, and gave it as their opinion that the cattle would take longer to fatten than the time stated by the witnesses for the other side. Mr. Harvey, in addressing the jury for the defence, admitted the lease, and the breach of- the covenant therein contained, but denied the responsibility of his client for any loss arising to plaintiff therefrom, he having been, in his opinion, and as he considered had been shown by the evidence, the sole cause of the delay, and the person in whose hands rested the management of the work. Mr Macdonald dil not require to enlarge upon the first question before the jury, the breach of contract having; been admitted. He pointed out to them, however, that even for that breach his client was entitled to damages. He was paying £300 a-year for the land, which was useless to him without the fence, and the fence not having been put up for a year after the time stipulated, he 1 held he was entitled to claim at least that year's rent. He further held that defendant was liable for all the damages flowing a3 the unavoidable consequence from that breach of agreement, and submitted that the damages under that head had been placed at a very moderate estimate indeed by plaintiff. He dwelt upon the point of the respective interests of the two parties in having the fence put up. It was clearly his client's interest to have it erected at once, therefore lie could not be supposed willingly to obstruct the work. On the other hand, it was the interest- of defendant to delay it as long as possible* so that, at the end of plaintiff's lease it might be in a better state of preservation than if erected at an earlier period. His Honor summed up briefly, directing the jury on the legal points of the case, and carefully commenting on the evidence. After about three hours' absence, the jury returned to Court, and gave their verdict for plaintiff — one farthing, for breach of contract, and £500 substantial dam iges resulting therefrom. Judgment was entered accordingly, but we understand that application will be made for a new hearing. SMITH T. BOXALL. This case came on while the jury in the preceding trial were considering their verdict. The action was for £250 damages for seduction of plaintiffs daughter. Mr Macdonald appeared for the plaintiff. The defendant had filed his plea, denying all the allegations, but did not appear himself, nor by counsel. Mr Macdonald opened the case very shortly, explaining that an action for damages was the only legal means whereby plaintiff could bring punishment upon the defendant, and thought the full amount should be inflicted, not only because of the injury done to plaintiff, but for the gross effrontery of defendant in having such a plea recorded and then failing to appear. Only one witness was called, the principal one, after whose evidence Mb Honor intimated his opinion that more was unnecessary. He then addressed a few words to the jury, deprecating the conduct of defendant in the strongest terms. The jury, without leaving their seats, returned a verdict for the full amount. A number of defaulting jurors were then called upon to answer for their nonattendance at the opening of the court. Several had their fines remitted, and others were mitigated, on showing cause. One, a patlander, of course, afforded great fun by the manner in which he put forward a most unique excuse. He had been working all night, had " turned in fora

stretch," about 7 in the morning, telling the "Missus" to call him at 9. The f * Missus '* had, however, been otherwise engaged, forgot her sleeping partner, and allowed him " to hang over a bit," and so he " didn't wake at all until too late." He was let oft with a fine of 10s, and a caution not again " to hang over a bit " when his presence was required in the service of his country. The Court was then adjourned sine die.