SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.

Evening Post, Volume XXII, Issue 90, 14 October 1881, Page 2

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS.

THIB DAT. (Boforo his Honor the Chief Justice and a Common Jury.) BAMUJSL BROWN T. T K. MACDONALD AND C. O'NKILI,. This was only a now phase of an old action respecting the Wellington City Tramway. Mr Brown built the tramway line and sheds, and the contraot whioh ho entered into waa so entered into with the defendants and Mr. John Henderson, since deceased. These gentlemen were called the promoters, and after the contraot was made they vainly endeavoured to form a company of their own. They then associated with some other gentlemen, who formed a company and took over the line. The first of these law proceedings was an action by Mr. Broken against the Company for payment for extras, and in this he succeeded. At the oonolnsion of the work Mr. Brown received a certificate from the engineer for a certain sum of money. This was the final certificate, and there then remained for him nothing to do but to keep the tramway in repair for a period of one year, in terms of the contract. Against this the promoters were entitled under the contraot to retain tha sum of £1260, which they did retain. Mr. Brown was jmid all but that amount. On the conclusion of his year of maintenance he brought an action for the recovery of the JJI2GO. Tho action was not brought against Messra, Mocdonald and O'Neill, bat against the gentlemen who had formed the companyMessrs. Henderson, Travers, and othersbelieving that he was entitled to recover from them. The learned Judges, however, said Mr. Brown's remedy was against the persons who had contracted with him, and not with the others. It was owing to this dcoieion that the present action was instituted, the plaintiff having no option bat to proceed against Messrs. Macdonald and O'Neill. Mr. Bell, with him Mr. Brown, appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Edwards for Mr. T. K. Maodonald (merely to admit certain documents), and Mr. Hutchison for Mr. O'Neill. The evidence was similar to what has been on a previous occasion. No evidence was called for the defence. Mr. Hutchison (for Mr. O'Neill) held that plaintiff should be nonsuited, on the ground that Mr. Brown did not co triplet 3 his contract, having omitted to erect certain stables without the sanction of Mr. O'Neill. (Left sitting.)