THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1877.

Thames Star, Issue 2526, 9 February 1877, Page 2

THE Evening Star. PUBLISHED DAILY AT FOUR O'CLOCK P.M. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 1877.

A-CASE was tried yesterday, in the;-Dis-trict Court. /Tphich ; from the adduced, or rather from the want of evidence to" be adduced, was clearly decid^j ma,; proper manner, and yet there could be no doubt but that the plaintiff, though defeated in one part of the case, and failing to prove, another part, was v a sufferer, inasmuch as it was evident that he had had taken from him property for which he had paid money, and which he was led to believe r was his own. The facts of the.case, briefly related, are these: the plaintiff purchased the right from the receiver of gbldfields revenue to cut do'wn^for iiii own use nine kauri''trees, paying'the rain of twenty-five shillings for each, kauri tree he was to cut down, and received a certificate of his right to cut in tie shape of a receipt for £11 ss. In accordance with custom he marked, or had marked, these trees, the mark used being not an uncommon one, viz., a parallelogram, and according to _ custom those trees were his and could not be touched by anyone else. When it was determined to take down a battery at Shellback, and. re-erect it at Karangahake, contracts ,were called for, and tr > of the contractors hearing that the cot- - pany had trees suitable ijbr bed-logs near, the battery,-and having enquired and found from one of the directors that this was the case, and that they could use them', naturally enough in calcalatin? the expense took this fact irfco o ■

sideration, aad so were enabled to send in a lower, tender for the work, the result being that they, were the successful tenderers. On coming to enquire, where these trees were, they were pointed oat Ho them by a man whom they supposed to be a director living on the ground, and they, acting in perfect good faith; and with the belief that the trees were theirs, or. that they might' cut them down, cr.t down first one, and then employed men to cut down the others. So far the case seemed clear. There did not appear to be a shadow of doubt but that one of the contractors had either by himself or through his men cut down these trees for which the plaintiff had paid. The question then was— (l.) Were the trees really the property of the plaintiff, that is, had the receiver of Goldfields Revenue the right to sell them. (2.) In what way, if any, were the defendants responsible for his action. The first of these points would, we hare no doubt, been made the subject of much controversy had it not been pretty evident that the 'defendants would i win on the second issue. At the same time it seems hard that a man who pays his money for certain rights should find out too late that the person who sold such rights to him had no right to do so, and consequently that he had thrown his money away. Judge Fenton illustrated this by the well known anecdote of the sportsman, who returning with an empty bag after a long day's shooting, and seeing some forty or fifty ducks in a pond, offered seven and sixpence to a rustic for a right and left shot at them. The answer was, " Pay your money and you can shoot for all I care." The money being paid, the shootist waited until the dueLs were all in a cluster, and then let fly with both barrels, the result being some thirty slaughtered ducts. The triumphant sportsman turned; with a grin to the rustic onlooker, and intimated that he thought he had the best of the bargain. "Aye," said the other, "and so you would if they had been my ducks, but they weren't." Now, we do not mean to say that the gold receiver had no power to grant such license, but simply this, that his authority to do so would prob« ably have been questioned had it been necessary for the defendants' lawyers to resort to this plan on .behalf of their clients. The second point was in what way were the defendants liable for the action of their contractor. As far as the evidence went there was nothing whatever to show that two of them, at any rate, were either directly or indirectly connected with the cutting down of the kauri trees, and the evidence against another was the reverse

of conclusive. The trees were pointed out by a man supposed by the contractor to be a director, but there was nothing to show that any of the four defendants knew that he had pointed these trees out, neither was it shown that he was acting by their authority, or with their consent. They were necessarily acquitted, and yet though it would have been unjust to hare condemned the defendants in damages, it seems also hard that a man should lose time and money, and be further mulcted in costs in seeking to obtain judgment For that which lie had paid for, but never beenable to-convert to his use.