SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Thames Guardian and Mining Record, Volume I, Issue 91, 24 January 1872, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

[Before His Honor Sir G. A. Arney. Knight Chief Justice, and a Common Jury.] Monday, January 22.

Kelly v. Brown.— Mr McCormick and Mr Sheehan for plaintiff, Mr Rees for the defendant. This case was part heard on Saturday, when the evidence for the plaintiff was taken. This morning Mr Rees opened the case for the defendant, and called the following witnesses Samuel Brown, the defendant, said he took the lease of the Hibernia Hotel from Kelly, thinking to make a business there. He had done what was required of him by the lease. He had expended £l9 in repairing the iloor, and had newly papered the lower passage as required. He put Rowley into the house to manage the business. Rowley was merely a servant, and was to have had a percentage if he took mo:e money than a certain amount; gave Rowley £3 a week. Witness also expended certain sums on fencing and general repairs. Paid £lO when Hartnett went out, and believed the defendant received £lO. It was not true that Rowley paid witness £IOO to go into the house. Witness asked llowlcy to go in, so it was the other way. A great maiiy people had a down on Rowley, but witness had found him honourable in his dealings. The license was refused. Witness did every thing in his power to get the renewal of the license so as to give it bsck to Mr Kelly. The affair was a bad speculation. Witness forbade Rowley harbouring persons of an improper character. Rowley said if he was to enquire of everybody who they were it would be a long time before he avould mako a business. Witness did not send washer” to throw the key at Mr Kelly. A month before the expiration of the lease Kellv came to witness’s shop for the rent. Witness offered defendant £l2 for the rent due up to the end of the term, and the key of the house. Defendant refused to take the key. Sent the key to defendant. Told the Messenger to leave it in the house. The condition of the house was better when witness gave up possession than when he took it from Kelly In cross-examination witness said he went to the house every day—sometimes three times a day. Was not aware that anything improper was being carried on. Would have stopped it if there had been. Paid £lO to Mr Wynn’s clerk.*.Believe Mr Kelly got the money. Witness did all that was required of him in the lease. Had lawyers’ letters from Mr Sheehan relative to the present action. They related to taxes. Paid them. Did not offer £IOO to settle the present action.—Three witnesses were called for the defence, to prove that the house was in a far better state of repair after the defendant took it than before. —Mr Herapath, architect, also described the state of the premises.—The ? counsel on either side having replied, His Honor summed up the evidence, directing the jury in respect of the several issues, except the fifth and twelfth, as to the conduct of the house. He thought the jury would be of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to some damages; and if so, it was entirely a question to say what would be the loss of the taking away a license from premises the value of which mainly depended upon the owner being licensed. —The jury retired, and after deliberating half-an-hour, returned into Couri, finding for the plaintiff ; damages, £lll.