SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 8729, 27 February 1894, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS. \ Mommy, February 26. (Before his Houour Mr Justice Denaiston.' The Civil Sittings of tho Supreme Court opened at 11a.m. v " iIOSI- V OBAHAJI AXD AS OTHER. This case, which was to be heard befoi* hia Honour alone, was an action for ejectMr Hobau, for defendant, applied for an - adjournment in order that he might obtain a short dato summons for administerincr interrogative?. X Mr Stringer, for plaintiff, after some _r_u. inenf, agreed to this course. 5 The hearing of the case was fixed for Monday next, CHILLIJSOWORTH V CHILMNO WORTH. On the application of Mr Kippeuberger herein, which was a petition by the wife lor dissolution of marriage, his Honour made the order nisi absolute. (Before a Conimou Jury of Four.) KCXSTOX V WALTERS AXD CO. The plaiutiff in this case was E. C Funston, ami the defendant Rees W Walters, trading as R. W. Walters and Co The plaintiff sought to recover certain goods wrongfully takeu away and also damages for illegal trespass. The statement of the case for the plaintiff was that the defendant, who ia a furniture denUuwas in the habit of letting furni'. ture on the hire system. Prior io the transaction which was the subject of the action the plaintiff had had dealings with defendant, and had purchased and paid for some £50 worth of furniture at the rate of £6 per month. Subsequently, i« Septem. her, 1892, plaintiff bought £50 worth of fur. niture on the same torm3. As he waa on ' the eve ofgoing to Dunedin ib was arrangethat Mrs Funston should select the goods." Mr Walters asked plaintiff to aign & document which was in blank. Subsequently 4| was alleged by the plaiutiff the defendant added a schedule containing tho description of the various articles of furniture and also filled it up so as to show that the money to be paid under it was to be paid at once, and not by instalments, as arranged. Subsequently plaintiff went to Duneain' and whilst there received a lotter from J_r Walters asking him as a great favor to givt him a promissory noto for the amount, and plaintiff gave him a bill of exchange, at fout months, fur £56 10s ld. Iv January, 1694 the defendaut was pressing the plaintiff) who was in arrear, aud he handed over 'to defendaut, as collateral security, a promissory note by one Beauehamp which was dishonored. Plaintiff saw Mr Walters on the subjact, aud exprewed his regret. The defendant said that he.had put the bailiffs in. The bailiffs returned at this timo and told defendant that they were uuable to get in. Plaintiff not desiring any - inconvenience, arranged to give a bill bl lading which he held us collateral security, Ou the 22nd January the defendant went up to the house occupied by the plaintiff and expressed to Mrs Fun-ton the regret he felt thab he should have sent up the b-iiifft, aud that it was a mistake. The noxt day, however, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant sent up the bailiffs, who tore up ' carpets, &c., and repnved the furniture. The plaintiff therefore sought to recover the goods which he alleged had been illegally taken away, and also damages for the trespass. The' statement of defence alleged that under the security given by the plaintiff to the defendant Walters was entitled to Uke the steps he had done. Mr Stringer for plaintiff, Mr RuwellTfor defendanb. Mr Stringer having opened the owe, called evidence. Learned counsel having addressed the jary, His Honour summed up, and the jury returned a verdict for £48, being the value of the furniture with coats, but uo damages for trespass. The Court then roso.