SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 261, 30 January 1873, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

( his Honor Mr Justice Chapman and a Special Jury ) January 22. Pritch-akd v. Packman.— This case Ins occupied the Court for tbe past nine days. It was an action for the wrongful conversion of three horses, Valued at Ll5O, and deten-sio-i of the same, for which p!aintiff daimed LIOO damages The evidence has already been published. Mr James Smith, with Mr Stout, appeared for the plaintiff ; and Mr Barton, with Mr t. lupman, for the defendant. Counsel occupied the morning sitting of the Court in addressing the jury, and after the adjournment, His Honor summed up, directing that it would be first necessary to establish whether an unequivocal demand was made by plaintiff or plaintiffs agent, and whether the def :udai.t gave an unequivocal refusal. It was next necessary to establish whether th s plaintiff was the owner of one or all of the horses. The ownershi >of one w.is enough to establish plaintiff's right to make the claim. Another e'ement to be established was whether Uoddam was in a fit state of mind to complete a business transaction such as thutin quostion. His Honor then reviewed the evidence, pronouncing th t there was pr'mia facie evidence of plaiutiff having unequivocally claimed the property. The disposal of theseconi question would tlepend on the establishment of the third. The evidence touching the question of price was conflicting, some of the witnesses lieina: of opinion that the price paid was sufficient, while others believed that it wa3 not. With regard to tne question of fitness to be a contracting party, it was clear that Roddam was addicted to the use of intoxicating l : quois, that he was sudject to delusions, and other md.--cations of delirium ; but at the same time it was shown that when not drinking he was free from 'delusions, and rational— that even whenrecojtcrin^fromtheeffectof drink he was rational, and ihat it was only when under the influence .of drink he became delirious. There vras < ne ecb of -witnesses who stated that he was habitually drunk, au I another set who said he was habitually sober. It would, therefore^ be necessary for the jury to coufine themß-}ves to the statements of witnesses relative to the conduct of Unddani a few days before and after the transaction. If a man indicated insanity a few days before and a few dajs after a given da.te, then it might be fairly assumed that he was insane, and unfit to be a contracting party, But with, a person suffering frqra heavy drinking it was different, and the evidence went to show that, on the day the transaction was completed, Koddam was sober and rational. Still, it would be necessary for the jury to ooDsider whether Boddam's mind had been so impaired by drunkenness as to be in capable of conducting business, and, if they found that he was, r.nd that the plain* iff was aware of that fact, and, also, that the sum paid to Roddam by p aintiff was insufficient, then they would be prepared to substantiate the claim of the Curator of Intestate Estate 3. Some supplementary evidence was then put in, and the learned Judge re-charged the jury. The jury foaud a verdict to the following effect : That one of the horses wa3 not the property of plaintiff, and that plaintiff be awarded L7O, or nominal damages in case the remaining two horse 3 are returned. The Court then adjourned until ten o'clock to-morrow merging,

Jauuary 24 M'Coomb v. Low.— ln this action, plaintiff sought to recover L 2.000 damages for alleged false imprisonment in August last, and LSOO special damages for loss oi trade in consequence. Mr James Smith, with Mr Wilson, app?arod for plai tiff, and Mr Barton, with Mr Haggitt, for defendant. Stuart M Comb, plaintiff, said he resided at Blacks for about ttn years, and carried on buaintfs as butcher and cattiu dealer. The defendant had two or three etaiio is at Blacks, aud was a member of the firm of Campbell and Low. Seine time ago he dealt with defendant for stock. He had another butcher's shop at a place called Tinkei's bully. in July last, he had a transaction with Campbell and Low. A few weeks before that he purchased 697 or 679 ewes fiom MiGlassford, the proprietor of a station in that district. He took delivery of them at the station. A number of the sheep stray d on to defendant's run. He informed defendant of the fact, and defendant replied that he would have to sell them to him, or pay 5s a bead for the grass. itne&s then said that that was more than the sheep were worth, and that he would sell them. Defendant replied that he would give him a shilling a head for them, and after a while he said he would give two shillings'for them, and asked if they all had goi away. Witness said, " No, about 160 or 200 ; but 1 cannot tell you the quantity " •He off. red to gnaranfee 200 if defendant would pay him for them, aud defi ndant said he would not pay until the cutting and tailing time. He then received Ihe receipt produced for the sheep. About the 19th of August, Constable M'Gann came to his place and arrested him oa tho charge of sheep stealing, and conveyed him to Black's and locked him up. He was locked up all night. The follow ng day he was taken t> Clyde by the same coustable, and again locked up, with a Chinaman. At 5 o'cLck he was bailed and lib rated. He immediately consulted Mr Wilson, and then went home. Three days after he attended the Court at Clyde to answer the charge on which he had been arres'ed. He was remanded on bail, and a petred on a subsequent day. On both days defendant appeared and gave evidence against him. He had no occasion to call witnesses on either diy and was discharged. He was put to considerable expense by the affair. He thought fom L3O to i 40. His business was considered injured by his leing hel I up to the world as a sheep stealer. L 2.000 would not cover the. damage he hal sustained. He lost a contract and his business at Tinker's Gully, and claimed special damages in consequence. A week or ten days before he was arrested, he was offered Ll5O for the shop and goodwill Now the goodwill was valueless. About three weeks after the trial at Clyde defendant came to Blacks and called on him. Defendant said, " I have corns to apolog'sa and make a settlement with yon " He said, "It is too late ; you have tried to ruin my family, and now you have come at the Jast moment." Defend nt then said, "Iwillet yon run your own cUtle on my run for five yea's, free of charge, and have the fees for all stray cattle, and that will be worth 1500 a year for you. He replied, " I don't want tj be bad friends with my neighbors," and defeudant said, " f you do.it settle with me. I will be yonr enemy." He did not settle with him. Sometime last month be was requested to attend at defendant's run and witness the mustering. He went, and whilo in the yar.ls defendant asked him if he h td got any of his sheep, fie replied in the negative. Defendant called him on one side and said, " Have you heard anything from your solicitor." He s >id, ' No," when defendant remarked, " You ought to, because I have written to mine in order to bring about a eettl-. ment.' The next day he identified £97 of tho ewes he bought from Gla&sf >rd. Defendant was- not present, but Mr Taylor, the overseer, was there. Two hunhed of the sheep were returned to defendant's flock, and the rema'iiing nin.ty-saveu were tiken away by him on the following day. — < ross-examiued : He had not transacted business lately with Mr Low. He did not tell .Vlr Low that the strayed sheep were the balance of tbe purchase from Glassford. He distinctly told him that he had other sheep on tha cosnmonage, in charge of a thepherd, bratded in the same way as the strayed sheep. He was positive he never s»id to Constable M'Gann that lie had sold all the sheep that were left. At the time he received the receipt from defendant he did not tell him that the whole of the sheep he bought from Glassf rd had strayed oa to his run. He proposed paying for the grazing of the she°p. Mr Low never cha'ged Inn with bavins; al'owed sheep to stray ou to his run wi' h the idea of getting the use of the st.it ion rams there, He never knew that John Hutchison was iv trouble for cattle stealing. The contract produced was written snd signed by Hutchison in his presence. Cox was present at the time. The co .tract was dated. August 13: h. 1872 ; ai.d it was in consequence of defen ian's action against him th&t he was not able to fulfil the contract, and therefore he sought for special dama es. He had twenty-one sheep in his yard, a few days bef-n-e ho wjs arrested, with Glassford's brand on them. He brought them fr *m Li 'k's pa Idock. He did not take them from Campbell and Low's run. He never at any time took sheep fiom defendant's run. He was certain that the twenty-one sheep never were on defendant's run. The receipt was dated July 9tb, a"d on tho 12th he took about forty sheep from Lisk's paddock. This number included th« tweuty-one. He had at the time be ween three and four hundred sheep ii tbe paddocks. He bad not adopted Glassford'a ear mark, neither had he earma ked any of his sheep. At the time he 801.1 the sleep to Mr Low he hid sheep on Glassford's run About a week before this he was summoned by Glassford for trespass. He was charged on a former occasion with stealing a beast from the property of Mr Cutte.n, but the charge was not proved. The reason why he did not sue Mr Cutten for damages was that ha had nob means t • do s ». He had maile over bis property- to His -wife not long since, but it was not in anticipation of an adverse verdict in this case, He bought the cattle branded D M and a bar (the skins of which were found in his yard) from John CoU Chapel, Before commencing to s'aughter the sheep purchased from Glas3ford, he did not give notice to tho police, because it was not necessary, as the sheep were intended only for pigs' food He had not yet got all the sheep he bought from Glassfont. The she pskins the police found in his yard belonged to twenty-one of the sheep he brought from Lisk's paddock. A. D. Harvey, Clerk to the Banch at Clyde, produced the information laid against plaintiff by defendant. Thomas M'Gann, mounted constable, said he arrested the plaintiff at Black's, under the warrant produced, and lacked him up ; on the night of the following day he took him to Clyde, and locked him up there. He was present at the enquiry at the Kesident Magistrate's Court, and heard defendant give evidence against plaintiff. He was at Mr Low's station on the 19th August, to give information regarding sheep he supposed to be stolen. He did this iv consequence of iaformation received from a shepherd named Smith. He asked Mr Low if he had heard anything of some sheep recently killed by M'Comb, and Mr Low said he had heard of them through Smith. Mr Low intended getting a warrant for search and arrest. He informed. Mr JUw of having seen M, ' Coral}

that morning slaughtering three sheep branded O on the tump, aud also that he was led to believe that they were Mr Low's property, because M'Conib said to him on a former occasion that he had sold all the sheep he had, branded O ou rump, to Mr Low. M'Comb also said that Mr Low purchased the feheep with the understanding that M'Comb would not have aDy more fheep on the run. On thi inoining of the 19th, he saw sev ral green skins branded 0, besides the sheep. He then asked M'Coirh why he had not given the police notice of his intention to slaughter sheep, and M'Comb answered that bethought there was no necessity, as the sheep were required only for pig s feed. The place where he found the skins was open to public view. A. J. Cox, butcher, residing at Black's, said he knew of plaiiitilf having been arrested on the charge of sheap-stealing in August last. At that time plaintiff was carrying on a wholesale and retail butchery, and his average profits amounted to about L"2O rer weeV. Business has fallen off very much since his arrest. Ho offered plaintiff Ll5O for the shop and good will of the lusiness at Tinker's Gul.v, before the arre*t ; now he would not give that s-m for it, because the business had fallen ott. Then he sold about five carcases per week, now he does not Bell more than one. After the a rest he heard defendant offer to plaintiff the rangership of the run, the privi.e^e of allowing his cattle to graze on the run, and also to pay his expenses in this case, if he would say nothing more about it. Defendant, at the same time, said that plaintiff might enjoy these privileges for five years, and th/At they were worth LSO > a year.