DEFENDED CASES.

Thames Star, Volume VII, Issue 2152, 26 November 1875, Page 2

DEFENDED CASES.

JAMES SAY V. HOEI TIBIO.

Claim £112s, for goods supplied. Mr Dodd for plaintiff; Mr Brassey, for defendant, asked for further particulars. Plaintiff in evidence said particulars had been furnished.

Defendant was called, and after some questions were put the case was struck out.

JOHN TOWNSEND V. T. W. GUDGEON. Claim £112s 2d, for goods. • The sum of 2s 2d and 5s costs had been paid into Court.

Mr Macdonald for plaintiff. Thomas Wayth Gudgeen deposed— That lie was an auctioneer in Grahamstown. He sold a piano for Mr Townsend to Mrs Heldfc for £30, for which he charged 30s commission. Cross-examined by Mr Macdonald — Witness did not delirer the piano. The reason was Mrs Townsend would not let it be delivered. (Mr Gudgeon here related the circumstances under which the sale had been effected). He had seen Mrs Townsend after selling the piano, who refused to let it go. Mr Townsend in presence of Mrs lownsend said "The piano 5s yours for £30." John Townsend deposed—That about a month, ago he saw Mr Gudgeon, who said, " By-the-bye you have a piano for sale." Witness said he did not know, he had better see the wife. Mr Gudgeon went to see his wife, and she point blank refused to sell the piano. Witness never authorised Mr Gudgeon to sell the piano, nor did he say to Gudgeon tliat the piano was his for £30.

Cross-examined by Mr Gudgeon—You saw Mrs Townsend before you saw Mrs Heldt, the day before, I think. I certainly never offered to let you have the piano for £30. Martha Townsend, wife of plaintiff, corroborated her husband's account of the matter. ■ ■' ' In cross-examination Mrs Townsend said Mrs Heldt had been to see her before the conversation referred to took place. She had never heard her husband say Mr Gudgeon could have the piano for £30. His Worship said he had no alternative but to give judgment for the amount claimed, and costs. CALEDONIAN G.M.CO. V. THAMES BOKOUGH COUNCIL. This was an appeal against the Borough Assessment; Mr Tyler for the defendants ; Mr Mac- i donald, for appellants, said that by arrangement with his learned friend all technicalities were admitted. The only question to be decided was the assessment. The annual value on mine, battery and other property of the company was put down at £600. It would be for him to show that the property would not realise an annual value of £600, and further that the fair capital value of the fee simple as computed according to the Act would not reach the amount.. The cost of the battery, including site, old Hauraki battery and tailings plant was £12,730.Mr Tyler apprehended that the annual value of the property would include the enhancements of the battery. Mr Macdonald, after some further argument, said he expected to be able to prove by evidence that the annual value was really nil, and that the annual value of the fee simple was less than £600, so that a reduction would be made. The following evidence wa3 then taken:—

Mr William Souter : I was once a master mariner, and am at present a battery.owner, having an interest in more than one battery. I know the Caledonian battery, also a battery formerly called Souter's battery, now called the Queen of Beauty batteiy. It was a 20----head battery when I sold it. It was then in good working order. The water supply was bad, both of this battery and the Caledonian battery. I sold the battery, land and all for £1400. Jf the land had been freehold I think the battery would have been worth about £250 more. The Caledonian battery has 62 stampers. Under the present circumstances ot the field a person taking over the Caledonian battery would pay nothing to rent it. I would rather take Souter's battery at a moderate rent than the Caledonian at no rent at all. r The value of the latter battery to sell would I should say be about £5000 if buyer could afford to wait for his money; jf it was mine I would sell it for less. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler—There are appliances for conveying stone from the Caledonian mine to the battery. I have examined the Caledonian battery all over; it bas( been put up about four years,

but has not done a great deal of work. Souler's battery has been put up about seven years. There is a plant for treat- | ing fiaili&gs^at, the Caledonian battery. Under the present circumstances I would not give anything per aDnum for the Caledonian battery.., ;"; ».„ , Mr E. Workmen said: I havfe ;b«fen : interested in 1' batteries to a consider-; able extent; •I '* have studied , thef thing well, I would not pay any rent for the Caledonian at air if it were offered to me. Three years ago I might have given a rent; last two years .1. would not. X have .not been ,ip^ -the* battery lately, but I would give from £3000 to £3750 according to the condition it was in, and would sell it at that price; ■■'■■•■•■"■'"■ ■■->■■■'■-■ >■■■■< ■■--■■ —■■•■■ •.■••..■.- t^...r.)w;.i -.'...-. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler—l arrive at this sum from what "I know second hand batteries have lately changed hands at. I should say the freehold is worth from £300 to £350. I think the engine is about forty horse-power; worth withjthe boilers about £1500. There is also another engine, I think about 15 to 20 horse-power, worth, perhaps, £200. The stampers in the new battery are worth about £700, including the boxes and driving gear; those in the old battery worth about £200. The berdans are worth about £150. , Mr Sims said: I would not give anything for the Caledonian battery' y per annum at present. I would not give, more than £4000 to buy the battery, and would take that sum for it if it were mine. Cross-examined by Mr Tyler—-I have held this opinion of its value.fpr twelve months. lam not in the employ of the Caledonian Company. The Court adjourned at 2 p.m. After the Court resumed the evidence of Messrs John Brown, A. Brodie, and others was \taken, and His Worship delivered judgment,Halte'rihg'the " annual value-' from £600 to £250.;. / £ j; The other cases were then proceeded with..

[Left sitting.]