SUPREME COURT.—WESTLAND DISTRICT.

West Coast Times, Issue 275, 10 August 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.— WESTLAND DISTRICT.

CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Ghesson.)

Wednesday, August 8, 18G6.

JAMES REYNOLDS V. SIMON TUANGAU.

(Continued from our yesterday 's issue.)

By his Honor — It is 'another phase of that extraordinary institution, "Tapoo." The mark put upon the article is a sign of the " Tapoo ;'' when the mark is off the tapoo is broken. If the tapoo is taken off, any one can take it.

By Mr Harvey — If a person finds an article, and puts his tapoo on, that would be evidence of his intention to return to it. On consideration, I do not think I could express a decided opinion as to this being a sign of his intention to return to the article. x

By the Foreman — The Rvalue of greenstone in small quantities is great — I have known L7OO given for a small piece of greenstone, but this was an heir-loom. I have seen some of the, greenstone in question, but I do not think it of the best quality. I cannot say what is the value of the stone in its native state. It would depend upon the labor bestowed on it. Mr South baid that before the Court adjourned he wished to observe that tho witness, Frederick Chappell, was present. He would therefore make a special application under the circumstances. Tho witness had been subpoenaed, and had been prevented from attending in consequeuce of the state ot the rivers. He would apply that he might be at liberty to examine the witness. If his application were too late he would leave the witness in the hands of the Ccurt for examination.

His Honor had much rather the witness should be examined by counsel, as this would give the counsel for. the defendant an opportunity of cross-examina-tion, and this would be more satisfactoiy.

Mr Harvey did not see how to consent -to the proceeding. lie considered it would prejudice his application for a nonsuit. He might have to re-examine all his witnesses, and go through all the evidence a^ain. He had never before heard of such an application having been made. His Honor asked Mr South why he did not make his application earlier. Mr South did not wish to interrupt the defendant's case. A similar application had been granted by Mr Justice Richmond in Southland, in a case in which he (Mr South) was engaged. In that instance, the Judge expressed his pleasure in granting the application, in order that the ends of justice might be attained.] His Honor decided to allow the vritness to be examined, but at Mr Harvey's request, took a note of his objection. Frederick Chappell was then examined by Mi 1 South, and deposed that he was a miner, and resided on the Greenstone Creek, at a place called Maori Point. He had lived there about two years and three or four days. He knew a man named AVilliam Chappell, commonly called Bill Chappell, and believed he saw him about six weeks since at the new rush at the junction of the Greenstone. Witness knew of his own knowledge that he was at the Saltwater Creek, which was about four miles to the north of the Teremakau.

A discussion here ensued as to the relevancy of £he evidence, the result of which was that his Honor ruled the evidence as inadmissable.

Examination resumed — Witness left the Greenstone Creek on the 16th March last. He was digging in the adjoining claim to the Maoris: Witness knew the defendant Simon; he saw him last dn tlie Greeks about two months before the ldth March. Simon neVer asked him to do anything in reference to the Greenstone. Witness knew the place where the greenstone was lying ; it was upon the worked-out claim of the Maoris. At the time plaintiff referred to, it was not covered. When Simon came on the creek, about the 16th March, witness saw him throw a few stones on the greenstone. The stones were so small that the first flood washed them away, and the greenotone wa3 left bare again. Simon was there one night, and left the next day. Witness was never in charge of the greenstone. He was not placed in charge of the greenstone by Simon or anyone else. No one gave him charge of it. He saw it every day during the two months he was there after the flood had washed the stones toff. There was no one in charge of the rstone for the last two months before the 16th March that witness knew or heard of. During that time witness was there and saw the greenstone almost every day, and sometimes seven or eight times a day. No one ever took 'possession of the ground on which the stone rested after the claim had been worked out by tlie Maoris except Mr Reynolds thfe plaintiff. By Mr Harvey — Bill Chappell was a mate of mine. I remember the plaintiff Reynolds "jumping" tho stone first. Bill Chappell was there then. Ido not know, save from his own words, that he was in charge of the stone. I remember Simon coming up, but I did not see Mr Revell. I saw Simon there just before he waß going back. I undertake to swear that Simon did not say to me, " If Bill goes, you look after the greenstone." I ditt riot ldok after the greenstone. I wrote a letter to Simon about it, but I did not undertake to look after the greenstone. (Letter produced.) This I believe to bo the letter I sent. (Letter read by Mr Harvey.) I did not consider that Simon had abandoned the stone. The reason + hat I did not take possession of the stone was that I did not know that it was of any value, or else I should have done so. I also thought that there was a Government reserve on all ■the greenstone. I know of there having been. a disturbance with the Maoris when Reynolds " jumped" the stone previously. I knew that the Maoris set great value upon the stone. Bill Chappell was there when Simon came up. Bill Chappell left about two months before the 16th March. He left just after Simon. I wrote the letter to Simon because he was a- friend of mine.

Mr Harvey, in addressing the jury on bohalf of the defendant, said he would do so as shortly as possible, and would make but few observations. He would commence by pointing out that the evidence might be divided under four heads— lst. The evidence of detention ; 2nd. As to the plaintiff's right to the property ; 3rd. As to the abandonment by defendant ; and, 4th. As to its value. As to the detention of the greenstone, the evidence was very slight indeed ; the only fact proved being that the defendant assisted to remove the greenstone from the Union Hotel to Cannon's store, which was no more than the policeman might have asked anyone else to do. If the jury came to the conclusion that the stone was unlawfully in the possession of the defendant, and wrongfully detained by him, they would give their verdict for the plaiutiff ; but, vice versa, if these facts were not proved. There must be a demand and refusal by the defendant before an action of this kind would lie. Now, they would observe, that the writ was issued before any demand had been made by the plaintiff, and at the very time he made the demand he had the writ in his pocket. The plaintiff had himself stated that the writ was issued on the 26th of March, and that he did not demand the return of the stone till the 27th. If, therefore, they were of opinion that there wa3 no sufficient proof of detention by the defendant, they must return a verdict in his favor. As to the property in the stone, not only had'it been admitted by the plaintiff, but all the witnesses-for the defence had testified as to its being the property of the defendant. So long ago as February, 1864, he had discovered it, and this was at a time when there were no Europeans on the coast. No doubt, long ere the plaintiff's alleged discovery, the stone would have been removed if Simon had been able to obtain the necessary materials for working it. But he was not in a position to do so ; for, by the evidence of Mr Revell, the Maoris could not obtain gunpowder with which to blast. Not so Mr Reynolds, who, as an Englishman, could obtain it without any difficulty whatever. Then there was the evidence of Simon, corroborated by that of Samuel and Betsy, that the stone had been worked upon by the plaintiff and Samuel. If, therefore, they believed that Simon's title was prior to that of the plaintiff, they must return a verdict in his client's favor, without they were of opinion that he had abandoned his right to it, which- opinion he (Mr Harvey) believed they could not arrive at. The plaintiff must have been the only man in New Zealand who had not heard of the discovery ; even he (Mr Harvey) had heard of it in Dunedin, but there the size was magnified to five tons. Referring to the evidence, they would perceive that the plaintiff and his man had only worked a few hours when Bill Chappell came down and warned them that the stone was the property of the Maoris ; but, upon the plaintiff threatening to " jump " his claim, he went away, and shortly after the plaintiff left. Then, again, the plaintiff had been informed by Mr Revell, that he must not work the stone, as it belonged to the Maoris, upon which ho packed up his tools and went away, and did nothing further in connection with the greenstone till the 27th or 28th of February. Were these the acts of a man who had a proper right to the article? Looking at the action taken by the defendant, he would ask them if they believed that it was his intention to abandon the stone ? No wonder the plaintiff had undisturbed possession of the stone from the Ist to the 16th March, after the dodge he had used, saying he was going to Okarita. It would be for the jury to say whether, at the time the plaintiff said he was going to Okarito, he did not designedly intend to deceive the defendant. Mr Reynolds had valued the greenstone at between four and five thousand pounds. "Was it likely that, rather than go to the expense of Ll5O or L2OO to establish his right, he should wish to give away property to the value of L 3000? If he thought he had a just claim, why did he go to Mr Revell? The plaintiff had no right to take possession of the stone under his miner's right, which was -a mere

license to dig for gold ; it gave him no estate in the land. It had been sought td be proved that Chappell was not in posse&sioli for tlie defendant, but they wdUld te% By the evidence adduced for the defence, that he was, and so was Fred Chappell. If they considered that when defendant left, Bill Chappell was in charge for him, then they must conclude that he did not abandon his property in the greenstone ; for the plaintiff must not dnly shew that the defendant had left, but that he (the plaintiff) knew he had gone. His learned - friend Mr South had expressed an opinion as to. there being a "popular delusion' 1 that stone like that in question belonged exclusively to the Maoris. He (Mr Harvey) wished the jury to dismiss from their minds any remark that might have fallen from the learned gentleman on the subject. All he (Mr Harvey) wanted was justice for his client. He did not wish for any favcr because he was a Maori, or because plaintiff was an Englishman ; all he wanted was justice. No matter what the defendant was, whether a duke, peasant, English* man or Maori, he was entitled to receive justice at their hands', and he (the learned gentleman) had no fear but that he would» Then there was the evidence as to that re 1 markable institution "tapoo." /The least mark would suffice to indicate the fihder'o intention to return to the property, and had not the defendant "tapooed" the greenstone by placing the timtter upon it? If they found that Simon had no intention to abandon the greenstone, eryo, he did not abandon it. According to the evidence of Mr Harris, if a person finds anything it is his property, and if he mark such article it is " tapooed." I| it was not proved that Simon knew of the timber placed by him being washed away, and did not go back and recover it, he (Mr Harvey) contended there was nothing to go 'the jury to prove abandonment. The defendant would never have marked the stone at all if he intended to abandon it. It was not likely that the block could be washed away by the flood from one place to another, as the plaintiff would lead them .to believe, nor was there any probability that this little pebble, weighing only about thirty cwt. could be ~ thus removed. As to the value of the article, they had a wide latitude to enable them to come to their decision. There was a fictitious value placed upon it by the Maoris. But they would no doubt agree with him that it was not the intrinsic value of the stone wßich made it valuable, but the amount of labor required to woffe it. It was a labor of years and ydftr3 to fashion articles out of greenstone. There was another reason, a " mere" that ha-l been used in the slaughter of their enemies, would be valued more highly by the Maoris than one that had never been used. For the sake of illustration, a picture might be worth a large amount of money, but it was not the mere paint and canva3 that made it valuable, but the labor and skill required to produce the scene. The learnedgentleman reviewed certain parts of the evidence, and concluded a long and able address by saying that he would leave the case in the hands of the jury to decide. Mi* South replied on behalf of the plain* tiff, and said that Mr Harvey had taken exception to something which he (Mr South) had said in his opening address; but the learned gentleman had himself made use of very strong language. It was certainly a strong charge for Mr Harvey to make against Mr Reynolds, wnen he accused him of telling a wilful and deliberate falsehood, with the intention of misleading the Maoris. He (Mr South) would tell the jury that not only was the remark most unjustifiable, but that from falsehood the charge had descended lo finessing and dodging, Mr Harvey explained that he did not mean to accuse the plaintiff of falsehood, as Mr South had stated.

After a few- remarks by his Honor, Mr South continued his address. He hoped it would not be imputed to Mm' that he had said anything -.unnecessaryr He would be very sorry to do so. He would proceed with the case. His learned friend had divided and subdivided / the evidence into four heads ; but there was a fifth, viz. — " wrongful detention." They must bear in mind that detentions comprised wrongful detentions, as well as lawful detenrions. To decide between' lawful and wrongful detention, they x must consider the surrounding circumstances, and the relative position of the parties at the inception of tho action. They would recollect, that at the commencement of the present action proceedings had been- commenced against the plaintiff, and that he had come to Hokitika for a particular purpose. He had left the greenstone, upon which lie had expended his labor and money, to bo forwarded down ; and while he was away it had been seized by the police, and had never been returned to him. In order to arrive at a conclusion, they must consider •the circumstances of (he seizure, which was not by the constable on his own authority, but under a warrant, in which it appeared that the defendant (Simon Tuangau) was the prosecutor. Could any twelve reasonable men come to any other con- , elusion from the aspect of the case, Lut that the defendant was the person who set the- .police in motion, he (Mr South) would not say whether rightly or wrongly, and was the acting and moving agent at the time fofr taking possession of the greenstone, which he said had never been abandoned by him. What opportunity had the plaintiff for making a demand ? The stone had been seized behind his back; Did he not take the first opportunity he could to demand the return of the greenstone? He did so, and the' defendant had time to return the property. It had been contended that there had been no refusal, but he (Mr South) insisted there had. When a thing was wrongfully detained, the law required that a demand for the return of it should be made, in order to give the detaining party an opportunity of remedying the wrong done by him ; and th?s^ had been done in the present case. Then came the criminal information against the plaintiff, which however vanished in the air. The present case was contradistinguished from an ordinary action ; for the plaintiff was under process of law, or, as he might say, an abuse of the process of law at the time. He was in duress, and so was the stone ; therefore, he had no other opportunity of making the demand than that of which he had taken advantage. He made the demand before the service of the writ. The fact was, he was on his way up to subpoena witnesses for his defence to the summons issued against him in the Warden's Court when he was arrested. How Mr Harvey could show that the plaintiff had any opportunity to make the demand before, ho (Mr South) could not for the life of him see. No man could do an impossibility,

* The writ took effect from the service, and he considered that l»s client had done all that was necessary to enable him to commence the action. There could not be the slightest doubt but that, by the manner in which the defendant interfered, he claimed the greenstone. He was proved to have taken some of the stone out of the bag, which, considering the stone was in dispute, was a most improper coifrse for any person— whether Maori or Englishman — to adopt ; and it was wrong on the part of the police to allow the act to be aon6. Hig IJonor here remarked that the whole action turned on the question of detention. Mr South contended that there was abundant evidence of the defendant being the moving party. It was not ordinarily necessary that he should be prime mover, but here it was so. He set the machine nft-motion, which without him would have 5-emained passive. He was the prosecutor, for although Perry put the law in operation, the defendant was the moving power. They had the constable's evidence of tho plaintiff's having made the demand, and to which the defendant made, no answer. The defendant denied being able to understand English, but there could not be the slightest doubt that not only did he understand it, but that he interpreted it, for when the plaintiff said, " You have got my stone," he interpreted the remark to Samuel. He (Mr South) considered that where a man declined to make a reply to a demand it amounted to a refusal. Then the question as to the plaintiff's property in the stone was of very considerable importance; for if it was laid down by a jury that if, on any land not excepted for the native race, and especially oh a gold field, there was discovered anything of value, and such article should not belong to the finder, the place would soon be deserted. If there was anything he took delight in in the old country, it was the study of real property, andhe had devoted considerable attention to it, for he liked to be governed by rules. learued gentleman here referred to the Maori custom of tapoo, and said that for a European to be bound by an old custom like the tapoo, would be a most monstrous proposition. He read passages from " Blackstone's Commentaries by Kerr," pages 4 and 16, as to the law relating to real propeity. It was there laid down, Cujus est sohem, ejus usque ad ccclum, and, as " Coke upon Lyttelton" added et ad infevos. His client had been Called ashite, and had been accused of falsehood, for saying that he intended to go to Okarita. But was there anything to justify this accusation, when, according to Mr Reynold's evidence, he was wavering between going to Okarita with his mate, and going to the Greenstone Creek. Because of this he was accused of strategem. To say the least, the witnesses for the defence were uncommonly sly. Then there was a conflict of evidence. What was there in the case that would make the jury disbelieve the plaintiff? As to the question of abandonment the jury would confine themselves to the evidence. The plaintiff worked there uninterruptedly, from the 2nd to the 15th of March, and surely this would be sufficient proof of the greenstone having been abandoned by the N i^wPndant. It appeared that the claim upon which, the greenstone rested was included in a goldfield area. The natives had been working at the claim some time in 1864, and having worked it out, had left the boulder on the edge of the bank. No continuous possession after working out the claim was proved. The only evidence on this point being the placing of certain pieces of timber over it, which they called tapoo. Then there was the evidence of the witness Fredeiick Chappell, who contradicted the defendant point blank. Why was not Bill Chappell produced, and put in the box ? Because they were afrpid to put him there. The tables were turned. It was a very astute proceeding on the part of the defendant ; for if Bill Chappell had been there he would, by his offh lip 3, have proved the abandonment of the greenstone. In this case, a very unusual course nad been adopted, but it had been done before. ' Ina case in which he (Mr South) was engaged in Southland, a precisely similar circiun stance had arisen. When he had nearly finished his address to the jury, he had been plucked by^ the gown, by a person who informed him that he could contradict a witness that had been*examyjaed, and upon his (Mr Souths) making 'an application to Mr Justice Richmond, I the Judge who tried the case, to allow the ; man to be examined, he acquiesced, at the same time expressing his satisfaction at the application having been made. In this case the witness had not been able to get down before being prevented by what lawyers call the " act of God." His learned friend had referred a good deal to the letter written by Fred. Chappell to the Maori, and endeavored to make a mountain out of a molehill. The reason of his having written the letter was very easily explained. The Maori had done him "an act of kindness, and the witness had in his turn done what he considered a kindly act to the defendant. The witness had proved that Bill ChappeH had not fc been in charge for more than two months before, and that he had left the day after Simon. Fred Chappell was not in charge ; then who was in charge ? Which of them tells the truth, the Maori or Chappell ? He defendant swore positively that Fred. Chappell was in charge from the Ist to tbe 17th March, and Chappell distinctly denies it. This was of immense importance. There was not the slighest doubt aa to the abandonment in law. He (Mr South) would again refer to "Blackstone,'' \ where it was laid down that "so soon as an act of possession ceases the abandonment begins," which was very applicable to the present case. The learned gentleman referred to the custom among miners, as to the abandonment of a claim, and said that it would be .unjust to the plaintiff that he should lose the greenstone after expending his labor and money upon it. He also briefly referred to the tapoo system. The jury would no doubt see their way clear to a verdict for the plaintiff. He thought that in his remarks he had not strained the evidence half as much as the opposite side. The question for them to decide was as to possession, and they must recollect that the demand was not under the goldfielcU' rules. Mr Harvey said that, according to Mr Souths reasoning, if a miner pegged round a horse he would be entitled to it. Mr South wondered that his learned friend did not bring in his favorite elephant. He would leave the case with the jury with the greatest confidence, as he *- was quite satisfied they would do his cliedfc justice. His Honor then proceeded to sum up / the evidence to the jury. He stated that

the case was of the greatest importance — not for the amount of property in litigation, but as between a Maori and a European ; for it wps of great consequence that a kindly feeling between the two' races should be maintained, and impartial justice should bo accorded to both. He hoped they would consider the case, not as between a European and a Maori, but in the same light as they would if it were between two Europeans or two Maoris. His Honor explained that an action commenced from the issue of the writ. This was one of the points upon which tjie counsol for the defence founded his application for a nonsuit, and he would therefore prefer leaving the question in the hands of the jury for their decision as to whether the defendant was guilty of the wrongful detention or not. Before they could come to the conclusion on this point adverse to the defendant, they must be informed as to tho plaintiff's right, and how he acquired that right, and here tho question arose as to the abandonment. The law was such that the finder of any chattel had a right to retain it against every one but the lawful owner. Now, it had been proved that the defendant had obtained the right to the greenstone, and the jury would therefore have to say how far the evidence went to prove any abandonment by the defendant of his right in the property. His Honor then proceeded to point out to the jury the principal points of the evidence as to this question, ne thought the greenstone could not be said to be perfectly abandoned if the defendant intended to return to it but he "might have come to the conclusion that the stone was of no value, and therefore did not think it worth while to continue in possession. But how far this supposition was supported by the evidence the jury would have to say. Supposing they came to a conclusion on this point favorable to the plaintiff, the next question for them to determine was as to the unlawful detention by the defendant ; and here he considered the evidence was entirely wanting. To enable the plaintiff to bring an action there must, before action was broaght, have been a demand, and refusal by the defendant. In this case the writ had been issued on the 26th March, and the demand. made on the 27th. Now, in the first rule of the Supreme Court, it was laid down that an action was to be commenced by the issue of the writ, so that this part of the plaintiff's case he considered had broken down. He had refused a non-suit because he thought it Would be more satisfactory if the case went to the jury, so that their opinion might be obtained on the point whether there had been such a refusal and detention of the greenstone on the part of the defendant as would enable the plaintiff to proceed with this action. It had been suggested that the refusal to answer the demand when made by the plaintiff amounted to a detention, but on this point they were to give an opinion. The next point in the case supposing they were satisfied of there being evidence as to detention, they must also be satisfied of the plaintiff having an immediate right -to the possession of- the greenstone. That the defendant originally had possession was beyond a doubt, and thus had a right against any wrong doer. If he had considered the block valueless, and left it, this would be an abandonment, and if they were satisfied of such an abandonment they would bring in a verdict for the plaintiff. But how did the plaintiff acquire his property in the greenstone ? That was a conclusion that must be arrived at from the evidence adduced, and he would leave this for the jury to do. The learned Judge then conmented upon the plaintiff's actions and statements to the Maoris, and left it for the jury to express their opinion as to whether or not they were the acts of a person who believed he had a right to the / greenstone. The plaintiff must prove that ' the defendant abandoned the stone, and that he (the plaintiff) took possession of it. He must also prove that the defendant, after demand was made, wrongfully detained the same from him. There was a fair inference to be drawn from all evidence that the plaintiff was in undisturbed possession of the stone ; but the question was, how did he get possession ? After a few remarks to guide the jury in coming to their conclusion as to the value of the greenstone, his Honor, concluded his remarks b}' telling the jury that they were to judge as to the different issue?, and give their decision.

One of the jurors wished to be informed on a point. — If the defendant left the stone for two months with ho one to take care of it, would his supposed intention be sufficient to prove the continuance of possession?

His Honor considered this was one of the cardinal points of the case. They were to decide the question as to whether the tempory absence of the defendant amounted to an abandonment. He then explained to the jury certain parts of the evidence on which they required information, and they then retired. His Honor attended at midnight, but the jury not having come to a decision, he desired that if, during the night, they should come to a decision, they were to le\ him know, but if not, he would he in attendance at eight o'clock next morning.

locked up all night, were discharged by his Honor at eight o'clock this morning, without having arrived at any verdict.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before G. G. Fits*Gerald,Esq., R.M., and W. 11. Revell, Esq., 11.M.) Thursday, August 9.

Drunk andDisordkrly.- -John Thomas was fined 5s and 15s respectively^ or in default 48 hours' imprisonment with hard labor.

CIVIL CASES.

Hauffrey v. Dyer. — Mr Oakes appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Roes for the defendant. The plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendant the sum of LSI, for damages sustained by the plaintiff by reason of a violent assault committed by the defendant upon him on the 15th ult. Plaintiff scught to recover a further sum of LG ss, the costs of. medical attendance. It appeared that on the night in question the plaintiff' and some of his mates were drinking in defendant's house (the Otago Hotel).' On leaving, one of them fell against the window and broke it. The defendant' went out, and requested payment for the window. They then went back into the hotel. They one and all refused to pay for it, but one of them offered to give his name, saying he would pay for it. Dyer went out in searcli of a policeman, but did not succeed in finding one. He returned and ordered them out. A part of them went out of their own accord, the rest were put out by defendant, amongst whom was the plaintiff. A general row ensued outside the house, which resulted in the plaintiff's being arrested, and locked up by the police for drunkenness. It was sworn by one of plaintiff's witnesses that Pyer, when he turned Ilauffrey out, followed him up and kicked him. This portion of the evidence was contradicted by the witness for the defence. After hearing counsel on either side judgment was given for the plaintiff, for L3O and costs, Mr FitzGerald remarking that he distinctly remembered the plaintiff being brought up before him on a charge of drunkenness, when he observed that his face b^re evident traces of illusage, and that he considened that he was more stupid than drunk — the stupidity arising from the ill-treatment lie had undergone. Cassius v. Mackie. — This case was adjourned'until the 13th inst. •

Bartlett v. Hewit and Shea.— Tho summons had not been served, and the case was accordingly dismissed. Emerson v. Churches and Ching. — Settled out of Court.

Greer v. Morison, Law", and Co. — This was a claim for L3O, for six tons of coal sold and delivered. Mr Oakes applied for a further adjournment, to allow the plaintiff to attend. The application was refused, and the plaintiff non-suited with costs. Salmon and Ramsay v. Campbell. — For goods supplied. Judgment, by consent, for the amount claimed, L3O 11s 4d and costs. The amount to be paid into Court by weekly instalments of L 2 each. Lockhart v. Kofahl. — Mr Oakes appeared for the plaintiff. For goods supplied. Judgment, by default, for L3O Ids 4d with costs.

Peters v. Slater. — Mr South appeared for the plaintiff, who sought to recover the sum of L 39 9s, for painting and papering. Tho claim, was opposed on the grounds that the work had not been done in a workmanlike manner, and had been condemned by the architect. Judgment was reserved until to-da}\

Jones, M'Glashan, and Co. v. Hill and Morrison. — Mr Rees appeared forthe plaintiffs,' and Mr Oakes for the defendants. The plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of L2O 6s, made up as follows :—LB 18s 6d, balance of account, LS 8s ; paid on account of .law charges ; and L 2 19s 6d interest on acceptance. The sum of L 8 18s 6d was admitted, and paid into Court. Judgment was given for Lll 7s Gd and costs. Martin v. Manning. — Mr Rees appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr South for the defendant. It appeared that on or about the Bth of June last the defendant in writing agreed to sell to the plaintiff the Tara's Hall Hotel, situate at the Kauieii, for the sum of L 250. Martin paid Manning LlO on account of the purchase money, and on a subsequent occasion, the 12th of June, tendered him the balance of the purchasemoney. That was the day named in the agreement for the payment of the balance of the purchase money, and the plaintiff, relying on the promise of the defendant to give up possession of the hotel, sold his stock-in-trade at a great loss. Defendant refused to give delivery or return the LlO paid on account, on the grounds that he was unconscious when he made the agreement, and totally unfit to transact any business. The plaintiff claimed damages for L 250, which was reduced to LIOO to eoino within the jurisdiction of the Court. Mv Rees proved tho agreement. Mr South called Dr. Anderson, who i-tated that he was called upon to attend the defendant on the day in question, and found him suffering from an incised wound on tLc forehead. The witness did not think the defendant was in a state to transact business when he last saw him on the Bth June. From the Bth to thfe 12th June the witness thought Mr. Manning was incapable of managing his affairs. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for LSO and costs.