DISTRICT COURT.

Southland Times, Issue 1675, 13 December 1872, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judge Ward) . Tuesday, December 10th. | The Court sat nt 10 o'clock at the Supreme i Court-house, the first case, 31aben v. Saunders. hi ing tried by a jury of four, consisting of Messrs R. Buchanan, W. Buchanan, W. G. Bright, and D. Anderson. This was an action to recover the sum of £111, being the value of r cheque drawn by defendant's buyer, and griven to plaintiff in payment for 120 sheep purchased of him on behalf of defendant, and of which cheque payment had b.°en stopped. The purchaso of and price of the sheep wis admitted, tho real question for the jury being (dirested of technicaliMes) whether the sheep delivered to defendant's buyer were those actually purchased by him, or whether, as it had been admitted that the sheep boxed with other sheep of plaintiff's, any substitution had been made. Mr Wade appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for defendant, and the sum of £60 had been paid into court as the value of 87 sheep killed by defendant before the stoppage of the cheque. James Maben, plaintiff, stated that in con- ' sequence of an arrangement between defendant j and himself, in Invercargill, Catherall (defendant's buyer) came to hia (plaintiff's) run at | Wyndham on 2nd October last, and, that a r ter ' mustering and examining the sheep, Catherall agreed to purchase 120 half-bred wethers and ewes, which were drafted out and marked on the head by Catherall with red paint. It was agreed that plaintiff should himself deliver the sheep purchased to Catherall at Edendale on the following Monday, which he did, and received from him a cheque for the purchase money, and that payment of such cheque bad been stopped. On cross-examination plaintiff admitted that during the night following the purchase, the selected sheep had mixed with other sheep belonging to plaintiff, the paddock fenc* not being sheep proof. William Bates Catherall, buyer for ciefendanfc. admitted all the facts as shown by the plaintiff up to the delivery of the sheep to him at Edendale, and stated that he had then remarked to plaintiff that the sheep looked small, and that he feared he (Catherall) had been " sucked in." He however receiv-d the sheep, and next morning gave plaintiff the cheque. He afterwards suspected that the sheep had been changed. Several witnesses were examined, and the counsel on each side having addressed the court, the case was sent by His Honor to the jury on three issues — the material one being " whether tho 120 sheep sold by plaintiff to defendant's agent were actually delivered." The jury returned a verdict for plaintiff on all the issues, fixing the amount of special damage to the plaintiff at £5, the costs of court being settled at £12 3s, and interest £1 lis 3d, making total amount of judgment, £129 14s 3d. Perkins (as Trustee) v. Bank af Oiago Corporation (Limited) Mr T. M. Macdonald for plaintiff, Mr Harvey for defendants. This was an action submitted by consent to His Honor, in which plaintiff claimed £1047 4s 9d — being the value of certain goods and chattels wrongfully detained by defendants after demand by plaintiff as Trustee. The facts are shortly that Daniel Sinclair, of Holylea and Toi Tois, sheep and cattle farmer, being indebted to the Bank of Otago, had given to the bank security over certain portions of his real and personal estate by way of mortgage and bill of sale. That the said Daniel Sinclair had subsequently become bankrupt, and that upon plaintiff as Trustee seeking to obtain possession for the creditors of such portions of the bankrupt's property as had not been included in the seeurity given to the bank, amounting in value to the sum sought to be recovered, that the bank had resisted the attempt on the part of the Trus^e to obtain possession of the said goods and chattels, and had refused to allow him to enter upon the land held by them as part of their security to remove or realise them, and alleged that the bankrupt had previously to his bankruptcy voluntarily given to tlie bank the said goods. This voluntary disposition on the part of the bankrupt was the point chiefly relied on by the defendants, although it was also alleged that certain of the artiolejs of which the value was sought to be recovered had not come into their possession. Daniel Sinclair produced a schedule of articles left upon the premises at Holylea and Toi Tois at the time at which the bank took possession under their security, and denied that any gift of the propumy in question to tho bank had ever been ma ie by him. John Sinclair (brother of the last witness) confirmed his statement as to the goods on the Toi Tois station at the time the bank took possession , and deposed to having made a valuation. He stated that when the bank bailiff entered he intimated that his instructions were to take possession of everything, and nob to allow anything to be removed. John Russell, manager of properties on behalf of the Bank of Otago, took possession of Sinclair's properties at Holylea, and the Toi Tois, on or about 23rd July last. Took possession of everything ; left a man in possession at each place, and instructed each man not to allow anything to be removed. Thomas Perkins, trustee in the estate of Daniel Sinclair, proved having made a demand on the Manager of the Bank of Otago at In vercargill for the property not included in the bankrupt'! security to the Bank of Otago, and having been refused. For the defence, Mr Harvey called John RusseU, who denied that certain articles in plaintiff's schedule were upon the bankrupt's premises at the time he took possession for the bank, and deposed to- certain parts of conversations between Mr Sinclair and the Bank Manager, and to a permission by Sinclair to him (Kussell) to take possession of all Sinclair's property for the bank. (At this stage His Honor suggested that it would be well for defendant*' counsel to abandon the plea of a voluntary disposition by Sinclair in favor of the bank, and this suggestion was assented to). The case at this stage resolved itself into a matter of assessment, and it was finally agreed by counsel on both sides, " That the Court should decide for what articles defendants were liable. The sale by Mr Osborne to take place on the ground, the auctioneer, after the sale, to assess value of articles not forthcoming for which defendants have been decided to be liable. Defendants were not liable for merino ewes, bedstead in front room, Toi Tois, 18 bushels rye grass seed in garret, Toi Tois. Liable for £15 for turnips, 1 cwt early potatoes, 1 ton potatoes, 1 cwt carrots, value to be assessed by auctioneer. Also liable for other articles alleged by plaintiff to be deficient. Amount of sale and valuation to be entered up on judgment for plaintiff with costs at next sitting, less auctioneer's charge for sale and valuation."