THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 5966, 26 April 1882, Page 2

THE COURTS.—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.-CIVIL SITTINGS.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Special Jury.)

Stewabt M'Comb v The New Zealand Loan ani> Mercantile Agency Company (Limited).—Claim, LSOO, damages through sheep depasturing on the plaintiffs crop. Mr MacDermott appeared for the plaintiff ; Mr Stout for the Company. At the close of the plaintiffs case Mr Stout submitted that the action against the Company must fail, although the plaintiff might have a claim against the man Ross, who was in charge of the sheep. Anotherpoint was that the land was in the occupation of the plaintiffs brother, John M'Comb, a deferred-payment settler, and he was the party who ought to have sued. His Honor said that he was not altogether satisfied from the evidence that the plaintiff could recover more than nominal damages. But as he relied upon having bare possession, »ni it did not really appear what the extent if his interest was, he (the learned Judge) did not think it desirable to withdraw the case from the jury. Leave to reserve the whole question of nonßuit would be reserved. Evidence was given for the defence to show that the land on which the wheat was growing was held under deferred-payment lease by John M'Comb. Ross deposed that it was at plaintiffs suggestion that the sheep had been put in the paddock adjoining the wheat. The witness stated that he had pointed out the risk to the wheat, and M'Comb said that two of his men would assist in guarding them. His Honor, in summing up, said that the jury would have to decide whether the plaintiff or John M'Comb was in possession of the land. He was of opinion that the plaintiff would be entitled to recover substantial damages—provided the Company were found to be liable—if he had obtained the consent, express or implied, of his brother, who was in occupation of the land, to plant »nd , reap the crop. The next question was, Were the Campany liable for the injury that was done to the crop? This point was complicated by the further question as to whether the Company had or had not a legal right to seize the sheep. The principal question for the jury's consideration was whether there was an undertaking on the part of the plaintiff to take charge of the sheep or not. The jury, after an hours' retirement, found for the plaintiff in the sum of L2O. Mr MacDermott asked His Honor to certify for a special jury. The point, after argument, was reserved, and the Court adjourned.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

(Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)

Sargood, Son, and Ewen v. H. Rose.— Claim, L 3 18s 4d. Mr Kettle appeared for plaintiffs, and defendant admitting the debt judgment was given accordingly, with costs. Thomson, Strang, and Co. v. George Gibbs. —Claim, L 64 16s 6d.—Judgment tor tiffsP. and J. Isaacs v. E. F. Corley.— Claim, L 8 17s 6d.—Judgment wad given by default for the amount claimed, to be paid by instalments. Colonial Investment Company of New Zealand v. George Goodwilhe. --Judgment was given for p'aintiffs for the amount claimed, L 32 7s 6d, with costs. In the case of Smeaton v. Riddle His Worship delivered judgment, allowing plaintiff expenses of procuring the cattle, 17s, and damages 13s, or 30s in all, with costs. In Smith v. Walmsley, an application for rehearing was dismissed. Judgment was confessed in the cases of the Bank of New South Wales v. John Mowat (L 26 3s lOd), A. Campbell v. J. Buchel (L 6 13s 6d), B. K. Gillan v. W. Gawn (L 6 14s), and Esther and Low v. M. D. Murphy (L3l9s 6d). In H. Bloxam v. W. Pearce, a claim of Ll 6d, the service was bad, and a fresh copy ordered to issue without costs. C. Matthews v, F. Valentine.—Claim, L 33 8s Bd.—Judgment for plaintiff. P. Errickson v. M. Anderson.—Claim, L 4 9s. Mr M'Keay for plaintiff, for whom judgment was given with costs. R. Rossbotham v. R. Corkran.— Claim, L 23 14s, for dray hire, etc. Mr Mouat appeared for plaintiff; Mr Callan for defendant.—Four witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff, and the examination of these, with the evidence of the defendant, occupied all the afternoon.—His Worship commented in strong terms on the way in which Rossbotham gave his evidence, he contradicting himself on several points.—The case had not concluded when wo went to press. ,

CITY POLICE COURT. (Before J. Logan, Esq., J.P., and T. De Lacy, Esq. J.P.) Drunkenness.—For this offence John Murdoch and Ann Whitehj were fined 5s each, with the alternative of twenty-four hours' imprisonment. Larceny.— Frank Sawlell alias William Pescud was charged with having stolen on the 25th inst. 200cwt of tallow of the value of 25s Bd, the property of Messrs Shand and Worth.—Mr Worth stated that from certain information he had received from his bookkeeper yesterday with regard to the forwarding of bones, tallow, and parings to the Taieri, he had instituted an inquiry into the matter. The van was examined, and instead

of there being nine bags in it, only seven were found. On the accused being taxed with having some knowledge of the affair he admitted having hid the bags, and expressed his willingness to show witness where they were. Accused then led witness to the shed attached to the stable, and from one of the spring-carts produced the missing bags.— Accused not being known to the police previously, the Bench decided to send him +o gaol for one month, with hard labor.