Untitled

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 248, 31 October 1872, Page 5

"Will you buy my horses and teams ?" Pritchard replied, "You say you cannot make any money by them ; how then can I expect to do so. But what price do you want ?" Roddam said L6OO ; and Pritchard said he would not give that, but offered,L4oo. That offer was made oa May 30, after Pritchard, Jcoiklam, and Scott had been to the circus. After leaving the circus the three adjourned to the Rainbow Hotel, where further conversation took place about the horses, and finally Pritchard raised his offer to L 450. Before separating Pritchard gave Roddam to understand that the offer of L 450 was a final one, and that he would let it remain open till the next morning. The following morning Roddain and Scott called upon Pritchard, and then Roddam tried to get Pritchard to increase his offer by L2O, but the latter refused. Koddam then agreed to take the L 450. It was arranged that they should go to a solicitor's to have the matter formally concluded. Accordingly they went to the office of Messrs Sievwright and 6 tout, and upon arrival there saw Mr Stout, to whom Pritebard and Koddam explained the business. Pritchard, in Roddam's presence, said he was uot disposed to complete the purchase until he was assured there was no lien upon the property. Mr Stout then said » search of the register would be required. At that point of the conversation Mr Stout had to go to the Resident Magistrate's Court, and the parties were handed over to Mr Sievwright. Here came an important part of the business, because, he submitted, the jury's judgment as to the state of Roddam's mind should be founded principally, if not almost entirely, on what took place at the interviews of the parties witk Messrs Sievwright and Stout. The business was explained to Mr Sievwright, to" whom Roddam gave prticulars of his property. Mr Sievwright ■would produce a book in which he took down from Roddam's lips particulars of his horse 3, teams, harness, &c. They were over half an hour with Mr Sievwright, during which time the latter put a series of questions to Roddam, who answered them intelligently, as Mr Sievwright would state. First of all, he must notice that his learned friend on the opposite side had said there was not the slightest breath of suspicion against Messrs Sievwright and Stout. He asked them, then, as men of common sense to answer whether, those gentlemen being acquitted of any dealing of an improper character, it was possible that Roddam, if he had been in a state bordering upon insanity, or even in the state which was the effect of recent delirium tremens, or even tipsy or slightly approaching intoxication, must not have been observed by either Mr Stout or Mr Sievwright. To the evidence of those gentlemen would be superadded that of their clerk, Mr Reid, who was the attesting witness to the deed. He would tell them how Pritchard and Koddam met by appointment in Mr Stout's office the same afternoon ; how Roddam signed the bill of sale ; how L2OO in bank notes and a cheque for L 250 were handed to him by Piitchard ; whereupon he said to the latter, "By the way, Pritchard, I owe you an amount," and how Pritchard replied, "I don't know what the amount is now; we can settle it by-and-bye." It would be further shown that on it being stated that one of the horses belonging to the purchased teams was in town, Mr Sievwright advised that symbolical possession should be given ; that the parties met by appointment, and the advice was acted upon. Reference was made to the argument of the other side that the non-registration of the bill of sale favored the idea that the transaction was a colorable one. Mr Smith said the stamping of the document showed the reverse was the case, fer on a document being stamped the Stamping Officer recorded its contents, and the entry was as open to public inspection as the deeds registry. The jury would have before them the evidence of Messrs Stout, Sievwriglit, and Reid, that Roddam, although he was in the habit of taking, too much duridg the two months he was in Dun■edin, though he had delirium tremens during that time, yet for a considerable time before May 31 he was fully able to transact business. With regard to price, he would be able to show that L 450 was a very fair one. But after all that was not the question, •which was whether or not Roddam was able to make the sale.

The following evidence was given :—: — Dr Sorley described the symptoms of delirium tremens. Mr Smith described the whole of Roddam's acts on the 30th and 31st May, as narrated above, and asked the witness whether he would say such conduct indicated mental aberration. Winess : Assuming there had been delirium tremens, he should infer that Eoddam was then quite sober, and in a sound state of mind, if a man had been drinking heavily for three months past, during which time he had several attacks of delirium tremens, which was kept by almost incessant drinking, he would expect to find that man somewhat idiotic. Any person would be able to see that there was something wrong with him. By Mr Macassey : He would not be surprised to hear of a man, in such circumstances, looking strange and wild. A man unable to satisfy his creditors, &c, would, when in delirium tremens, have great fears with perhaps a suicidal termination. Dr Richardson gave similar evidence. He thought it was possible for a man who had been drinking heavily, and had delirium tremens, to recover from that attack without medical assistance, thaugh drinking all the time. "Alex. Imrie and John Scott bore out Mr Smith's statement as to Roddam baring in April offered to sell his property to them for L5OO. Imrie said he was with Roddams the whole time he was in Melbourne; he was sober all the time. October 24. At the close of the plaintiff's case yesterday, Mr Smith moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that there was no evidence to go to the jury that Roddam was not sane at the time he made the sale ; but after argument his Honor decided to allow the case to proceed, and agreed to give a directien to the jury on the point in charging them. The case for the defendant was continued, the following evidence being given :— Henry Driver said on the 30th May last a good team of horses would have been worth from L 250 to L3OO. He would not be surprised to hear that some of the horses sold singly fetched L 47. John Miller, carrier, knew Roddam's teams, many of the horses of which were ' old. He thought the teams complete would be worth about L5OO. Charles. Rainfbrd, carrier, said he saw Roddam some days bsfore big death ; he then appeared to be all right. His teams were second-class ones: L 450 would be their market value. He had himself offered to sell a team of eight horses for L 250, but could not* get it. "William Owen, carrier, saw Eoddam the week before lie left Dunedin. He was then sober and sensible. -■ He knew Roddam's teams. Some of the horses he would not purchase at any price ; others were worth L4O. Arthur Smith, livery stable-keeper, had seen eleven of the horses purchased by Pritchard, and valued them at L 266. Charles Gibbin saw Roddam three weeks before he left here ; ho was then sober. John Steplienson (of Wright, Stephenson, and Co.) said -on September 7, he sold a team of eight horses, old ones, for L 17 7; and the waggon and haraeM for L 42. Another team pf five bones uri waggon 10W for LlO2,

The horses were good ones. Another team of seven horses and waggon, considered the best team on the road, sold for L 220. Those horses were young ones.--By Mr Macassey : Teams oftentimes fetched more by auction than by private sale. Horses fetched more when sold singly than in teams. A dealer sometimes came acrods a " flat ;" and then he might dispose of his horses at a proht ranging from 100 to 200 per cent. If be did not, he would come to witness, who would put on a little more " s,team," and knock the horses at a higher price if possible. (Laughter). Perhaps they would not go. It was a fact that many horses were lacked up at sales and resold at an immense profit. Samuel Moody, carrier, said ho drove a team for Roddam for eleven months. By Mr Macassey : Witness recollected Roddam accompanying him on one occasion with his team as far as the Junction Hotel ; but he could not remember whether it was on the occasion of his last trip or not. Witness did not see him return to town by the coach, nor did he hear the coachman refuse to take Mm up in the coar,b, because he was afraid of his falling off tho scat, aB ho was drunk. When witness left Roddam, he was •' half tight." He was often in that state. Weighing the number of times ho had seen Roddam drunk against those when he was sober, he should say he was more frequently sober than drunk. Jfle was quite certain of that. On one occasion witness slept in his room. Roddam often asked him to do so, but he only slept with him once. That was after be came from Melbourne. Witness did not think he asked him before he wont there. So far as he knew Roddam slept soundly on that occasion. He never in his life told M 'Gavin that "he would rather walk in the streets than again sleep in Roddam's room." The reason why he slept in Roddam's room was that Roddam had so often asked him to do so, and he thought he would satisfy him for once. Winess only once settled with Roddam, and that was before he went to Melbourne. He had not withheld from settling because he always found Roddam unfit to do business : Roddam was loth to settle, and would always say, "Oh, let it stand over ; we can settle next time." Caleb Moore had seen eleven of the horses purchased by Pritchard from Roddam, and valued tthem at L 265. James Marshall gave unimportant evidence. Richard Atkinson, storeman at Driver, Stewart, and Co 's, said Roddam was at their store on the 3rd or 4th June. He was then sober. Witnesß asked him how it was that he had not come to them to sell sheepskins, as he had been in the habit of doing. Roddam replied that he was not going to have anything more to do with sheepskins, as he had sold out ; and he mentioned that he had sold his teams to Pritcbafd. Witness remarked that he expected he had sold pretty well. Roddam replied "Pretty well." Witness said he understood he (Rcddam)had three or four teams, and he expected he had got LIOOO. Roddam said he had only two teams, and that he had got between L4OO and LSOO for them. Witness then remarked that he had got some good horses ; and Koddam replied, " Four or five of them are only fit for boiling down." By Air Macassey : Had known Roddam for six years, and he was always " a little on," except during the time he had. a broken leg, when he was very steady. By Mr Smith :He did not mean to say that Roddam was unable to take care of himself ; he was quite able to do that. Witness would have thought it fair and honest to have had transactions for the purchase of sheepskins with Rodclam when " a little on. " Robert Stout, solicitor, recollected seeing Pritchard in Bond street on May 31 ; and, in consequence of a conversation he had with him, returned to his office a little after 1 1 a.m., when Pritchard, Roddam, and John Scott came in. Witness then detailed the business Pritchard- and Roddam had with him ; how Pritchard explained that they had come to conclude a purchase of horse teams ; how Roddam gave his name, stated there was no bill of sale or martgage over his property ; and how, after further' conversation, he handed over the parties to bArA r Sievwright, his partaer, he having to go to the R.M. Court. Witness did not observe anything about Roddam to lead him to believe he was not in his right mind. He was perfectly certain he was sober. Looking at Roddam's face he would not have said he was a teetotaller, but he did not present the appearance of being under the influence of drink. By Mr Macassey : The opinion he had expressed to-day concerning Roddam was founded solely on the three minutes' conversation he had with him. Basil Sievwright, solicitor, detailed what took place between Pritchard, Roddam, and himself ; how that he received instructions from Pritchard to prepare a bill of sale for the purchase of teams ; that Pritchard and Roddam both informed him that the amount of the purchase money was L 450 ; that Roddam told aim how to spell his same, described, his occupation, gave the name and color of each horse belonging to each team, giving the teams separately ; that he requested the parties to return at 5.30 p.m., when the deed, would be ready ; that they did so ; that when the subject of delivery was mentioned, that Pritchard told him one of the horses was at his (Pritchard's) place, and either Roddam or Pritchard said its name was Charley ; that witness asked Pritchard if the money was ready, whereupon the latter pulled out a bundle of deeds, and took a blank cheque, which he filled up; that Pritchard handed the money to Mr Reid, witness's clerk, who counted it, and said it was all right ; that witness then requested Roddam to sign the deed ; that he instructed Mr Reid to take Roddam and Pritchard to the latter's place, to enable "Pritchard to get delivery of the horse there as for the whole, whereupon he was to hand Roddam the mosey ; that before they left the office Roddam said "We have an account to settle, Pritchard ;" whereupon Pritchard said that it could' be settled at another time, as he did not know the exact amount. The first interview lasted for twenty minutes or naif an hour. Roddam, during both interviews, seemed to speak and act like a rational man. Witness observed no trembling of the hands ; and he appeard to be sober. Witness took him for a sober, intelligent man. Witness caused the bill of sale to be registered on his own responsibility. He considered that he was acting for both Roddam and Pritchard. The impression- on his mind at the time was, that Scott was present as a friend of Roddam's. — By Mr Macassey :' He did not know much about Roddam's sanity, but he was sober, he was sure of that. He appeared to be sane ; and he considered him so at the time. The other witnesses examined were— R. Gawn, Thomas Hudson, D. H. Miller, J. Harris, D. Ballantyno, W. I«les, John Hughes, J. H. Reid, H. M 'Donald.

October 26. His Honor, in charging tho jury, pointed out that they should answer certain formal issues in the affirmative ; and said he had simply to direct attention ta those which related to the value of the property, and to the stientia or knowledge of Pritchard that Roddam, at the time he executed the bill of sale, was not in a condition to enter into a contract. There was no doubt whatever that there must have been in this case some of what was called "hard swearing"; not, perhaps, to the extent it would at first sight appear, because, as to Roddam's mental condition, it was possible of both classes of evidence — that a great portion of the evidence for plaintiff and defendant might be true,

and dovetail into one another, and relate to observations of Roddara after different periods during the two months after he returned from Melbourne. It was not necessary, therefore, to come to the conclusion that one set of witnesses committed perjury, and wore not to be believed. It wa3 veiy possible that when the jury had passed over the evidence in review, they would como to the conclusion that, aubjf-ct to certain discrepancies, the evidence of a number of the witnesses for the defendant was not inconsistent with tho evidence of the state of mind and the habits of Roddam — for two reasons : first of all, witnesses disposed to be friendly to the defendant would possibly use more moderate expressions in epeakmg of Roddam's drunkenness than witnesses would do who were more disposed to be friendly to the plaintiff. What the jury had to do was this : They must judge from all the evidence whether the extent of drunkenness to which Roddam had been addicted, ai.d had been practising for at least three weeks before he executed the bill of sale, was such as to reduce him to a state Of mind which rendered him incapable of performing, ior his own interest, tho function which he did perform on the 31st May. Wfcats he wished to bring the minds of the jury up ts was this : For the defendant great reliance was placed on tho fact that in all outward appearance nothing was to be detected by Messrs Sievwright and Stout J; and that Roddam was capable of performing all the ordinary functions of business on the 3 1st May But if delirium had set in, and had bo exhibited itself on several occasions as to produce an unusual state of miud, a disturbed state of mind — in other words, insanity — then the rule was this : It was not absolutely necessary —it would be calling upon a party to do too much — to prove that at the very moment the deed was executed between the two parties, no other persons being present ; it would be too much to call upon him to prove that at that very moment the person was in a state of insanity ; and therefore the law allowed this : That acts of insanity, repeated acts of insanity, up to a certain date — say the 31ot May, in this instance — with none observed on that day, followed by acts of insanity after that day, might, if the jury thought fit, and if uncontradicted, justify the inference that acts of insanity, of which there was no evidence, continued on that day. But it had always been laid down that the rule did not apply to mere delusions. One judge had gone so far as to say, .that because there was a delusion in the morning, and certain other delusioas in the afternoon, the delusion at midday could not be inferred from them. To that, to bring this state of mind of Roddam to bear upon the transaction of the 31st May, tho jury must be convinced that his delusions, his wanderings, or his hallucinations, call them by whatsoever name they would, had so impaired his mind shatitwas actually disordered previous to the 31st May ; and if the jury thought 'it was in a coutinous and chronic state of disorder up to the 3Ut May, and from the symptoms he exhibited, possibly on the Ist June, or up till then, and continued down to the time of his suicide— then, if that were the opinion of the jury on the facts, they would be justified in inferring that that disordered state of mind was uot mitigated on the 3 1st May ; but if they were not permanent, only mere transient delusions, the jury wer«s not justified in inferring delusions on the 31st May, when there was no evidence of them, from certain delusions which took place before, plus certain delusions that took place afterwards. That, he thought, was the true state of the law, as far a3 he had been able to collect it from an examination of the cases ; that the inference did apply to acts of insanity, not to mere delusions. After alluding to that evidence, his Honor pointed out that it was for the jury to say, first of all, what inference they would draw as to Roddam's sanity or insanity, as to his sound or unsound state of mind ; from the evidence, as to his condition, and conduct, and habits, and appearanc3 before the 31st May, and after the 31st May, ending unfortunately in suicide ; ami then it was for the jury to say whether, from what had been described by Messrs Sievwright and Stout, they were so convinced that what Roddam did there was so completely the act of a sane man, as to lead them to the conclusion that on that day's interval, the 31st May, he must have been in their (the jury's) judgment, in a state of sanity. If they thought that they would find their verdict accordingly. But there had been a remark suggested by Mr Macassey, which he (the learned Judge) thought it his duty to mention. It was this — that neither Mr Rievwright nor Mr Stout had known Roddam before, and had no reason to suspect — they did not know, in fact — that Roddam was a person of intemperate habits. It was also a proper remark to go to the jury, that Mr Stout's conversation and inquiries with Koddam only lasted ten minutes at the utmost, perhaps scarcely so long ; and that at the outside Mr Sievwright's communication with Roddam only occupied half an hour. The attention of neither Mr Stout nor Mr Sievwright could havo been called to any circumstances which would raise their suspicion that Roddam was not in a sound state of mind. They were therefore casual observers, ordinary observers, and not highly critical observers. At the same time no one could conceal from his mind the fact that if there had been a wandering during that half hour, or anything approaching an infirmity of mind of any kind, an ordinary observer ought to have seen it, for the evidence of all the medical witnesses seemed to go to this — that if anythinc seriously affected the mind of a drunkard the countenance and demeanour would exhibit it. If the jury thought Roddam was in that insane state of mind as to be incapable of managing his own affairs, they would answer the issue in the affirmative. If they on the other hand, thought Roddam was iv a sufficiently sound state of mind to know what he was about, notwithstanding tbat he had been drinking to a considerable extent previously, notwithstanding that he had exhibited symptoms of delirium, notwithstanding that ha ultimately committed suicide, they would find the issue in the negative. Then as to the 10th issue, referring to Pritchard's knowledge. If the jury came to the conclusion from the evidence of Messrs Sievwright and Stout — for it must mainly turn on their evidence— that Roddam was able to manage his own affairs, then, of course the tenth issue became comparatively unimportant ; but if they found themselves convinced by the evidence as to Roddam's habitual drunkenness, delirium, and subsequent suicide— that notwithstanding the appearance* on the 31st May, Roddam must nevertheless have been in an unsound state of mmd — if the jury came to that conclusion, they Tvnjnld have to say to the tenth issue whether Pritcliard vrae aware of Roddam's state of mind or not. The only way to judge was from Pritchard's conduct, and they could not help saying that his conduct on the whole had been, to say the least, very extraordinary.

After nearly four hours' retirement, the jury agreed to a verdict substantially for the plaintiff, answering the issues as follows :—: —

Was the plaintiff, at the time of the commencement of this action, the administrator of the personal estate and effects of John Roddam, deceased ? — Yes.

Was the said John Roddam in his lifetime possessed pf two waggons and sixteen horses,

and certain gear, harness, implements, and fittings belonging thereto ?— Yes. Did the defendant, a few days before^the death of the said John Roddam, purchase the same frem him, together with two other howes not the property of the said John RorUam, for the sum of L 450 ?— Yes. Was the said sum paid by the said defendant to the said John Roddam, and if so, how ? —By unmarked cheque for L 250, and L2OO in notes.

What was the value of the said waggons and horses at the time of sale ?—LSOO.? — L5OO.

Had the said John Uoddam been heavily drinking for some months prior to the date of the said sale ?— Yes.

Had the said John Roddam been subject to hallucinations for several weeks prior to the date of the said sale ?— Yes.

Was the said John Roddam at the time of the said sale able to understand and appreciate the nature and purport or cousequeuces of the said sale ? —No.

Tf unable, was such inability caused by the effects of drink and insanity, or either of sucli causes ? — By the effects of drink. Had tho defendant at tho time of the paid Fale any knowledge that the said John Roddam was drunk or insano ? — No.

Did the siid John Roddam commit suicide on or about the. 9th of June last ?— Yes.

Was tho said John Roddam at tho time of the said sale largely indebted to his creditors, and if so, to what amount ?— LBB3, as proved by Nutter. Did the plaintiff, before the commencement of this suit, elect to avoid the said salo, and give notice of such his election to the defendant ?— Yes.

Was the plaintiff, before the commencement of this suit, ready and willing to repay to the defendant the moneys given by him to the said John Roddam for the said waggons, horses, gear, harness, implements, and fittings ?— Yes.