DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 9182, 3 September 1908, Page 6

DISTRICT COURT.

CONCLUSION OF SITTING. MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL. The sitting of the Wairarapa District Court was brought to a conclusion yesterday. Mr C. A. Pownall moved for a new trial in the case >Hewett v. Rossi ter, in which the jury found for plaintiff for £lO damages for trespass, and generally on a claim respelling the "Barracks" boarding- 1 house at Cross Creek. Counsel in his argument said that the jury found, first, that defendant j trespassed, and, second,for the return of the deposit, £55. They had apparently paid no heed to the statement of claim, as by paragaphs 4 and 5 a claim for trespass could not be maintained, as these paragraphs staled that phintiff willingly vacated the property to ailow the defendant to complete with Jamieson. This clearly showed that plaintiff condoned any trespass, and the verdict was on that point against the weight of evidence. Then, the jury did not attempt to answer issues 2, 3, and 4, which related to a partnership, which counsel submitted was undeniably proved by the evidence of witnesses for defendant. The verdict in this connection was inconsistent, and had any of these issues been answered it went to the root of the whole matter. It was clearly a neglect of duty on the part of the jury, and counsel had in all his experiance never known a jury to disregard such important questions. On plaintiff's own pleadings it was obviously not contemplated that the repayment of the £55 5s by defendant was not unconditional, being dependant on a sale which never trm spired, through no fault of defendant's. On the whole evidence, counsel thought it was eminently a case for a new trial. The jury's action in awarding plaintiff £lO damages was a mystery to counsel; he did not know where it came in. Every opportunity was given to plaintiff to complete the contract, and even now detendant was willing to allow plaintiff to complete, and therefore no damages were sustained. On the grounds set out counsel said the verdict was defective, and judgment could not be entered up. His Honor: I consider it was not a case for a jury at all. Dr. Trimble argued points for a nonsuit on the grounds of the invalidity of certain contracts between the parties. Mr Hollings, in reply, submitted that the Court had to take one man's word against another. Counsel thought that His Honor had directed the jury that even if plaintiff had failed to pay his second instalment defendant had no right to step in and resume possession against the will of Hewett. The jury had found that defendant had transgressed in this respect, and if in other respects the case was one for the Judge alone, in this connection it was one for a jury. Counsel dealt with the question of the alleged partnership, which he contended had not been satisfactorily proved. In fact the evidence of defendant's own witness, Weightman bore out the contention that there was no partnership inasmuch plaintiff was ordered off the premises. On the point of the unanswered issues counsel submitted that these issues were unnecessary, and the jury confined itself to tne governing issues; having answered these, they did not find it necessary to answer the lesser questions put. Because Jamieson was released by defendant from the performance of his contract, when the latter had a right to enforce it, that was no concern of plaintiffs. Counsel also dealt with other main questions involved. His Honor said he thought that the unsatisfactory and inconsistent verdict justified the application which would be granted. Costs in the former trial were reserved.