DISTRICT COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XIII, Issue XIII, 19 December 1892, Page 3

DISTRICT COURT.

(Before His Honor Judgo Robinson). SATURDAY. Official Assignee v, Izasd, At the conclusion of the evidence in the above case, Mr 0. P. Bkerrott for tliH detencn and Mr 0. A. Pownall for the plaintiff addressed the jury at length. His Honor District JtyJgRobinson further directing tho jury and submitting (ut the requost of counsol) nineteen issues for consideration, After over an hour's retirement tho following verdict was roturned:—

(1). Did D. B, Papworth apply to the defeudunt's cloik to insuru his threshing maohine, anil pay to him Bum of £J 10 being one yi-ar* premium for suob insurance ? " Yes," (2). Did the defendant's olerk inform Papworth (but be bad done all that whs necessary to effect un insurance and that a polioy would be ißsu«l in due course? "No-"

(81. Was such olerk authorised hy the defendant, to mate auob statement, or accept premium on Bucb terms ? "No."

(4), Did the eaid olerk inform the defendant, when ho handed the premiflm to him, that Papworth would call in and sign a proposal 1 " Yes." (5). It is a general practise of inautanco offices to require a proposal to be made out and signed by applicants for insurance, before entering into any contract of insurance ? "Yes,"

(6). Was it not a condition precedent to any insurance of the macbino being affected, that Papworili make out and sign a proposal? "Yos." . (7). Did the defendant Izard intend btfiJfeot any insurance of the machino the proposal was Bigncd by Papworth? "No," (8). Bad the defendant authority from the Company to enter into any contraot of insurance, other than the contract expressed in the cover recoipt? "No." (9), If any insurance of the maobine was effected bytho defendant, on behalf of the■ Company, was, snob iasaranoo effected on the terms expressed in the cover receipt? "No insurance was effected,"

(10), Did tho defendant Bubaequontly by his oonduot ratify such stutoment and acceptance by his olerk? "No,"

(11) Did the defendant if he raided to enter into any contract of msurance, intend to enter into a contract in the terms expressed in the cover receipt? "Yes." (12) First—Did the defendant warrant that ho bad any authority from the ootrpany to enter into a contract for the insurance of the threshing maohine for one yoar ? " No," or Be^jjuJ—that ha had authority to ontwonly into the contract expressed in the cover receipt 1 " The defendant was gaidod in hiß business by the directions ou the cover receipts." (18). Didtbe defendant ever receive notice from the company forbidding him to take risks on threshing machines ? 11 N»,"

(14). Did the defendant oxooed his authority, as agent for the oompany in taking the risk from Papworth ? " No." - '

' Upon the second count(ls) Did the said D. 8, Papworth jay tho premium to the defendant as agent for and on behalf of the insavaoca company.?

(16) Or did ho pay the said pro* mium to defendant as hip own ngeut, and ouiploj liim as aachjto offeot an insurance for him ? " ifo." :

(17) Or did lio pay the.said premium to tlio defendant as agont for tho company, and a 8 to his (tinplaintiff's) sulioitorandagent ? " No; for tlio company only," (18) Did the, defendant wholly neglect to effect bucli insurance? " No; owiug to the contributry negli-g.-nce of I'apworih." (19; What was tlie value of t:0 machine? £l5O.

Judgment lor the defendant was entered with coats £l2 lfis, MONDAY. JIULOAIIY V. LAWLER. This was an action in which tho plaintiff sought to recover the sum of£loo for alleged slander. On Saturday afternoon, Mr Pownall, for the defendant, applied to have the evidence of Detective Campbell and Warder Scanlon taken in advance of the ease to enable them to return to Wellington. Mr Bunny offering no objection His Honor consented

Detective Campbell deposed that lie know the individual willed "Masher Mitchell," and had arrested him twice. The plaintiff in the present cafiu (Mulcahy) bore an extraordinary resemblance to Mitchell in appearance and general build. Wnnosshad to look twioe at Muloahy to make sure ii was not Mitchell, it witness had a warrant to amt Mitchell it was quite probable ho would have arrested Mulcahy'under it, Anyone with Iras intinwe acquaintance with* Mi'.ohell would lio almoßi euro to take one for the other. Mitcheil was a notorious criminal and hud servod terms for bursary,

Warder Sranlou corroborated this evidence and udiml that MitcheU'waß au adept at disguising his accent ami nppu.'imnce. If ho had passed the plflintiff(Mulcahy) on iwmbion Quay lie would have said to him, "Hillo" Mather."

On the case beine; called on thin morning, Mr Bunny for the plaintiff informed His Hoi>or Mat a settlement of the case w»s likely lo be effected and requested an adjournment to onablo arrangements to be made. His Honor agreed without prejudice.

On the Court resuming, Mr Pownall for tbo defendant stated that the case had been settlod. In justice to the plaintiff he would like to say that the substance of the action arose out of a case of mistaken identity, and any statements mado against Mulcaliy by Lawler were (jroundloss, and the 'defendant wished to publicly express his regret, His Honor said bo waß pleasd that the caso had been settled. He thought the plaintiff had acted handsomely in aceopting a settlement, instead of pressing for a judgment. The course adopted had the full approval of the Court.