Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

C. P. COX v. J. S. BRUCE.

To the Editor. Sir,— The report of the above case in the Lyttelton Times of the 28th instant leads to the supposition that Mr. Cox had given up my farm on account of his lease expiring, and that the umpire appointed by the arbitrators had founded his award upon the award of my arbitrator only. Mr. Cox had my farm, on a long lease, which he persuaded me to cancel, and further, solely, at his request, the adjustment of our two accounts settled by arbitration. This was done hy the umpire after receiving the written awards of both of the arbitrators and going over the farm with Mr. Cox, and resulted in the small balance of only L 95 3s. 6d, being given in my favor. This small sum, Mr. Cox, with his gene ralaptitude for what he calls business, refused to pay me, and took me to the Supreme Court to set the award aside. Mr. Cox was saved a very large sum by my agreeing to cancel his lease during these hard times : Firstly, by a heavy rental agreed upon in more prosperous times than the present ; secondly, as he had cropped all the land he had a right to, and furthermore had laid half of it down so badly in grass that it is almost useless as it is, it would have been a heavy loss to him to continue to keep the farm unless he might break it up, which the lease prevents him from doing. The irregularities complained of by Judge Johnston were all caused by Mr. Cox, and yet he is to have the decision given in his favor. Such are the uncertainties of law, and proves how very often the ends of justice are defeated : 1. Mr. Cox got me to sign an agreement which should have been a bond, and which he afterwards stated was not good. 2. He kept this agreement, and never informed the umpire that he had such an agreement, consequently from ignorance of such an agreement (which the law never allows), the umpire did not act in accordance with it. 3. Mr. Cox communicated on several occasions with the umpire on the matter of the arbitration during the time that the umpire was engaged on his award, which was quite contrary with justice. 4. At Mr. Cox’s request the umpire called a meeting of all the parties interested in the arbitration, at which Mr. Cox’s arbitrator, Mr. John Carter, refused to answer any question which was put to him, although the umpire demanded the same of him. 5. Mr. Cox had given all his claims in writing, all of which were included in his arbitrator’s award, so that he had every and the same opportunities of presenting his claims that I had, but the real truth is that after the arbitrators had sent in their awards to the umpire, Mr. Cox wished to bring in fresh claims before the umpire, and virtually to set aside the award of his own arbitrator. In justice to the gentlemen who took so much pains and trouble to justly adjust the accounts between us. I must ask you to be so good as to publish this letter.—l am, &c., J. Stanley Bruce. Ashburton, 30th July, 1880.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

Bibliographic details

Ashburton Guardian, Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 135, 5 August 1880

Word Count

C. P. COX v. J. S. BRUCE. Ashburton Guardian, Volume 1, Issue 135, 5 August 1880