CIVIL SITTINGS.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 259, 16 January 1873, Page 6

CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before Mr Justice Chapman and a common jury.) December 8. Driver and Another v. Learmonth. — This was an action brought by Henry Driver and John Maclean, ot Dunedin, to recover the sum of L 585 Is 6d from William Learmonth, now of Melbourne, but formerly trading at Dunedin, for goods sold and delivered, and money advanced. The transaction was alleged to have been matured in April 1865, andin theamended replication it was set forth that the original debt or causa of action did acciue more than six years before the commencement of this suit, namely on August 4, 1871. That on the 17th April, 1865. defendant acknowledged by memorandum in writing the amount now claimed, and promised in said memorandum to pay the same, either as a whole or in portions, whea able to do so. That after delivering the said memorandum, defendant left New Zealand, and had since lived abroad. Defendant pleaded that he had not been asked for the money for a period of six

and a half years after the transaction was matured, and that, therefore, according to the Statute of Limitation, he was not liable The issues to be tiied were, (1) did plaintiffs sell and deliver goods aDd money to defendant? (2) did defendant sign the document acknowledging the debt ? (3) did defendant immediately after leave i\ew Zealand, land since live abroad ? (4) wa3 defendant, at the time of signing the document, or since, able to pay a part or the whole of the money ? (5) was defendant absent when he first became able to pay ? (6) has a period of six years elapsed from the time he became able to pay and was ask d for the money ; and (7) what sum, if any, are plaintiffs entitled to recover from defendant ? Mr Barton, with Mr Chapman, appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr Smith for defendant. The jury, after an absence of fifty minutes, gave an affirmative on all the issues submitted, amounting to a verdict for plaintiffs for L 585 Is 6d.