SUPREME COURT, NAPIER.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3264, 17 December 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, NAPIER.

CIVIL SITTINGS;

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 16

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) SUTTON V. DOUGLA.S. Examination of Mr W. Douglas continued : I asmmed that the transaction would be carried out as represented. In February last Mr Sutton said to me, " This £2000 will be due shortly." I replied that 1 did not think so; it was not due till I got a clear title. I was surprised at the nature of the demand. Since the purchase I had endeavored to get a title, and had seen the natives in order to purchase outstanding shares, but the natives were unwilling to sell and bad always been so. I only bought one share—that of Pohuka Hapuka. I often tried to come to some arrangement with Pukipuki, a native woman who claimed several shares, but never succeeded, although I had always been prepared to buy her shares. I once asked plaintiff how it could be done, and plaintiff said he thought the woman would sign a confirmation deed for £3000. I saw Pukipuki about il, but she would not consent. My title is incomplete, though I was always willing to spend money in accordance with tbe supposed arrangement. By Mr Lascelles : I was not in negotiation with any others except Pohuka and Pukipuki. I gave Pohuka about £700 a* nearly as I can remember. The highest sum ever offered Pukipuki was £4000 in cash. The offer was made through Mr Hamlin, interpreter. I did not offer her £1200 for an absolute conveyance. I would not say whether I would be prepared to give £400, simply for confirmation of existing deeds, for which the £1200 was offered. The £4000 was for an absolute title in fee simple of her whole interest. The offer was made at tbe time a lawsuit was going on, and when she was under her solicitor's guidance. I was quite prepared to give £3000 cash. Ido not know if there are any outstanding interests except Pukipuki'e.

Arthur James Cotterill, solicitor, said that he prepared some documents in connection with the transaction between plaintiff and defendant. There was a bond. He received verbal instructions from the plaintiff concerning it. The bond was executed in his office along with the other deeds. It was a proper practice to send out h draft of deeds and have it sent back with a memo, that it had been perused. There was no such memo, on this draft, but he was under the impression that it had been sent out. He could not say who was present beyond Mr Sutton when the instructions were given. The bond formed a part of the general transaction, and tbe costs in connection with it would be paid by the party giving it. In his ledger he found ii charged to Mr Douglas. The bond remained with witness as Mr Sutton's solicitor. He d'd not think Mr James Watt was present when the instructions were given. By Mr Lascelles: Witness could not say that Mr Sutton was wrong as to who were present when the instructions were given the plaintiff was more likely to remember. Messrs Edmund Sutton and B tlharrv held powers of attorney for Mr James Watt at the time of the signing of tbe deeds. Mr Archibald Watt was present. He believed the deed was read over. He should think it very unlikely that a deed would be signed without being first read over. This was the case for the defendant. Mr Lascelles submitted that there was no case for the defence to go to the jury. After considers tile argument his Honor ruled against Mr Lascelleß. Mr Lascelles and Mr Travers then addressed the Court. Before summing up, his Honor said that, as the jury might possibly leave some of the issues unanswered, he asked counsel whether he should draw such further inferences as to facts as might be necessary. Counsel having assented, his Honor summed up at great length, stating the several issues. The jury retired at 3.35, and returned into Court one hour afterwards with a verdict for the plaintiff on all the counts. BAKKER AND W. L. BEES. This was a cafe arising out of the Whataupoko block transactions, and was brought to recover the sum of £405, being moneys paid by the plaintiff at defendant's request. Mr Travers, instructed by Mr Finn, appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Rees conducted his own defence. A special jury, with Mr C. B. Winter as forman, was sworn in to hear the case. Mr Travers opened the case at great length, and during the course of hia address produced a document contaiting an admission on the part of Mr Rees that he owed £155 Mr Rees said that until the case came on he had quite forgotten tbis circumstance ; he would readily admit that portion, and consent to a verdict for the amount. Mr Travers said the plaintiff would not at present press the claim for the remaining £350 upon Mr Rees. A verdict was entered for £155, with an understanding that tbe remainder of the claim would be amicably settled. The court then rose.