CIVIL SITTINGS.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XIII, Issue 908, 11 March 1856, Page 3

CIVIL SITTINGS.

The Court was opened on Friday morning, at 10 o'clock, by his Honor the acting Chief Justice. On the names of the jurors having been called, James Hughes, Otahuhu, shoemaker, and Richard Hunt, Otahuhu, storekeeper, did not answer to the call, and were fined £10 each. Read v. Dalton. Mr. Merriman withdrew the record in this case. Harp v. Dicyer. Settled out of Court. Fletcher v. Priestly. Before the following Jury .- — John Hornby, Alexander Hamilton Hunter, ' Thomas Hunt, William Frederick Howaid, John Howard, Arthur Hyde, Thomas Hughes, Henry Ilusspy, George Howes, John Hooker, George Humphries, Charles Hopkins, [foreman]. The Attorney- General stated the case. This was an action to recover £53 10s. 4d., balance of account for goods sold and delivered. The plaintiff was Mr. Fletcher, of the Steam Flour Mill ; and the case was undefended. The learned counsel then called a witness, who proved the pi ices to be fair and proper, his Honor ruling that the items themselves were tacitly admitted by the non-pleading of the defendant. His Honor having briefly charged the Jury, stating that the question oi pi ice was all that they had to consider, The Jury, after a few minutes consideration, returned a \eulict for the plaintiff. — Damages £-53 10s. id. Halstead o. Fletcher. Before the same J iry. Mr. Merriman for the plaintiff, and the AttorneyGeneral for the defendant. Mr. Merriman applied to the Court that the cnbo might be referred to the aibitratinn of the Chamber of Commerce. By consent, verdict was entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed, £100 10s., subject to the award of a-bitrators to be chosen according to the rules of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, with power to the aibitratois to direct that a verdict be entered for the defendant, with the usual powers to the arbitiatorc The Jury returned a verdict accoidingly. Fairfax and another v. Gorrie. Mr. Merriman for the plaintiffs ; Messrs. Bartley and George for the defendant. The evidence in this case was voluminous, and we can only, at present, attempt a summnry of it It appears that, shortly after the death of Mr. Wellesley Hughes, Mrs. Hughes applied to the trustees, through her brother, Mr. Gorrie, for the erection of a tomb stone over the giave of deceased. The trustees acquiesced, and deputed Mr. Gonie, who was one of their number, to send the order to Sydney. Two witnesses, Mr. Russell and Mr. Harris, testified that this authority was accompanied by the remark that the expense should be moderate." Mr. Gorrie, on the other hand, did not recollect the usu of these words. After somfc time the tombstone ai rived— a very elaborate and expensive article — and with it a draft for the large sum of £279 4s. 6d. The draft was dishonoured by the trustees, on the giound that Mr. Gorri* had entirely exceeded hiß authority; and hence the present action. Verdict for the plaintiffs,, £279 4s. 6d. The Court then adjourned sine die.