DISTRICT COURT.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 1922, 2 March 1875, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

THIS DAY. (Before Judge Beekham.) DONNETLY V. BKASSE7. This was a claim for £100 damages, the case haying arisen out of one i.a which Patrick Eervrin. Donnelly sued Mr Brassey for £30, money wrongfully withheld, and £70, the amount of'damage sustained thereb} r; plaintiff was nonsuited on the ground that* he-could not claim the £30 as money had and received. Ho now brings another action, in which the defendant is charged with having receired £30 for a specific purpose, and failed so to apply it. The plamt was as follows :—This suit is brought to recover from the defendant the sum of one hundred pounds in that the plaintiff on or about the thirtieth day of May, one thousand eight hundred and seventy-four, paid to the defendant the sum of .thirty pounds sterling, which sum the defendant promised to pay to one John Charles McCormick at -Auckland on behalf of the plaintiff, and all conditions were fulfilled and all things happened and all tim< s elapsed necessary to entitle the plaintiff to maintain tliis action, yet the defendant hath from then:e hitherto wrongfully neglected and refused to pay the said money according to his said promise and engagement although often requested by the plaintiff so to do, and the plaintiff claims the said sum of thirty pounds in the action; and defendent having by this wrongful neglect and refusal to pay the money aforesaid, caused plaintiff a loss of divers large, sums of money, amounting ift all to seventy pounds, the plaintiff claims £100 damages.

Mr. Campbell appeared on behalf of the plaintiff'; Mr. Tyler, with Mr. Macdonald, for defendant. The sum of £19 had been paid into Court by the defence, and the plaintiff took it out. Some discussion arose on defendant's counsel applying for surety for costs. The Court decided not to grant the application. All witnesses were then ordered out of Court, and the following were sworn in as a jury :—George Blott, J. Brown, Win. Burton and John Browning. Mr. Biofcfc was elected foreman. Mr. Campbell then opened his case by readiug the plaint to' the Jury. Mr. Tyler submitted, on counsel reaching the second count, that no cause of action was shown. The Court decided to hear Mr. Tyler's objection after plaintiff's counsel had concluded his address. Mr. Campbell then proceeded with his address, in which the details elicited in the former case were recounted. Subsequently Mr Tyler's objection was overruled, the cause of action being disclosed in another count,

Examination of witnesses followed. Mr. Brassey's evidence was simply a repetition of that given in his examination in the former case. Mr. Joy (a fresh witness) was examined touching a letter he had received from Mr. McCormick having reference to the first action Donnelly v Brassey. The letter was lost. At the conclusion of Mr. Joy's examination, the Court adjourned for lunch. [Left sitting.]