THE COURTS.-TO-DAY

Evening Star, Issue 4965, 31 January 1879, Page 2

THE COURTS.-TO-DAY

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Special Jury.) Otago Harbor Board v. David Protjdfoot.—ln this cafje the Otago Harbor Board sought to have it decreed that the defendant should be compelled to carry out a; contract which he had entered into for the purchase of certain lands. The Attorney-General, with him Mr James Smith, appeared for the plaintiffs; Mr B. C. Haggitt for the defendant. The declaration set forth that on June 19 last, and from thence till the commencent of this action, there was vested in the plaintiffs certain parcels of land being sections 60 and 61, block 1, and sections 1, 4, 5, 6, 7. 8. 9. ".JS. 16. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 24, of part of the land described in a certain deed of conveyance from the Superintendent of Otago to plaintiffs, dated the 23rd September, 1876, and the plaintiffs had, during the whole of that time, power to Jease the said parcels for the term of twenty-one years on the conditions mentioned in ijhe.:pafrticulars and conditions of sale hereinafter mentioned. Some time before the 19th day of Juue plaintiffs instructed Mr Montagu Pym, auctioneer, to, sell by auction on the said day the public leases for twenty-one years to be computed from July 1, 1878, of the said parcels ojf land together with others in accordance with particulars and conditions of sale. That r pn'the said date the lands were put up for sale by Mr Pym, and at the sale .the defendant was the highest bidder for, and became the purchaser of leases for twenty-one years of the sections before mentioned; that immediately after the sale Pym, by his agent William Hepburn, auctioneer, signed a memorandum of tiie sale; and defendant, with other in accordance with the particulars and conditions of sale, signed a memorandum agreeing to accept from the vendor and to duly execute a oepy or duplicate'of a deed of lease similar to the printed draft lease ; that all tunes have elapsed and: all conditions have been performed necessary to entitle the plaintiffs to specific performance, df the said agreement; and that plaintiff have always been ready and willing to perform the said agreement on their parts, but 1 the defendant has refused to perform the same on his part. Wherefore the plaintiffs claim as follows: (1) That the defendant may be decreed to specifically perform the said agreement; (2) that the defendant may be ordered to pay the plaintiffs their costs of action ; and (3) that the plaintiffs may have such' further relief as the Court may decree. The defendant, by his pleas, denied that the plaintiffs, as being a body corporate they were bound to do, had apointed Pym under seal as their agent, that Hepburn was appointed in writing as Pym's agent or clerk, or that Pym was authorised by-the Board, under their seal, to so appoint Hephurn; and it was alleged that before the things mentioned in the declaration happened, defendant refused to be bound by the alleged purchase ; wherefore it was contended that no legally binding contract subsisted between the parties. For the plaintiff J. L. Gillies and J. C. Esther were examined; and the defendant on his own behalf.

Counsel on either side having addressed the jury, His Honor said that it seemed to him absurd to have to direct a jury as to how to find on issues where there was no dispute as to the facts.

The Attorney-General replied that, as the Harbor Board was a corporate body, he did not like to act without consulting it. It was not like the case of an ordinary person that he was acting for. His Honor then said that he would prepare findings for the jury. The issues were then answered in this way by fiis Honor's direction :—To the first three issues as to whether Montagu Pym was either before or on the day of the Bale authorised by the Board to contract for the sale 6f the lands in question, and as to whether he was authorised or empowered to sell by the plaintiff under its common seal or in any other manner to depute or delegate his functions and agency to the eaid William Hepburn, the jury found that apart from the memorandum of confirmation of the 4tb July thev find "No." . y

4. Did the plaintiff in any way bind itself by its common seal or otherwise to the contract or agreement made on the 19th day of June, 1878 ? It executed the memorandum of confirmation of 4th July under its common seal.

5. Before the plaintiff confirmed in writing, and uader its seal, the said contract, as mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the declaration, had the defendant abandoned, repudiated, and refused ■ to be bound by the said alleged contract, and had he given notice of such abandonment, repudiation, and refusal to the plaintiff?— No. 6. Has the plaintiff or defendant, at or since the time of making the alleged contract or agreement in the declaration set forth, done or performed any act, deed, matter, or thing in pursuance, fulfilment, or part performance of the said alleged contract or agreement?— No.

7. Was there at any time any memorandum or note of the alleged agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, signed by the defendant or any person lawfully authorised by him, other than the writing in the declaration set forth ?—No. The Court then adjourned. '

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before J. Batbgato, Esq., R.M.) John Fargie v. William Penfold.—Claim, L 4 78, on an I.O.U.—Judgment was given for plaintiff by default. John Kent v. John Mackenzie.—Claim, L2l 9s, for work done.—Mr Dennißton appeared for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given with coats.. - Edward Cook v. John Cochran.—Claim, Lo, on a promissory note.—Mr Stamper appealed for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given with costs. Thomas M'Kay v. Jeremiah Goodyer Claim, L 9 Bs, for board and lodging.—Mr Hay appeared for i laintiff, for whom judgment was given by default. CITY POLICE COURT.' (Before E. Elliott and J. Willis, Eiqrs.. J.P.'s.) ' DrfnkbnxeßS.—Henry Fleury was fined sa, with the usual alternative; William Eeess and Lydia Bay ley were, discharged. Frank South, who appeared to be suffering from the effects of heavy drinking, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment on a charge of being an habitual drunkard.