SUPREME GOURT

Grey River Argus, 18 June 1915, Page 7

SUPREME GOURT

CLAIM AND COUNTER CL ADI

SUPREME COURT CASE

The claim for £905 Is 3d, made by Noel Peat, of Moana, against William (Joss, of Christchurcli, for alleged breach of contract and a counterclaim, (Joss v. Peat, for £460 13s, goods supplied, etc., occulted the attention ot his Honor Mr. Justice Denniston and a jury of twelve, of whom Mr. Herbert Smith was foreman, at the Supreme Court, Greymouth, on Wednesday, and again yesterday. The claim by N. Peat was in respect to an agreement in which plaintiff ran the defendant's sawmill at Moana on contract. Messrs Raymond and Sargent appearing on behalf of claimant and Messrs Weston and F. A. Kitchingham for th/? counter claimant. The evidtnee for the defendant conhided yesterday afternoon, and'counsel having addressed the jury the Court adjourned at 6.30 p.m. Oh resuming this morning, his Honor, in submitting the issues to the jury, said the case was not altogether one suitable for a jury, questions of fact and law being so mixed up. The questions for the jury were questions of fact, and they would be governed entirely by the evidence. JURY'S FINDING. The jury retired at 11.30 and after about an hour's retirement returned answers to the issues submitted to them as follows: — Was the engine, mentioned in the agreement of the first day of January, 1913, reasonably repairable after the collapse on the fourteenth day of February, 1914?— N0. Was the breakdown of the engine in February, 1914, caused by (a) failwear and tear? — Yes, or (b) owing to the boring consequent on a piece of file getting into the cylinder? Did the plaintiff, after the breakdown of the engine in February, 1914, proceed with tramway, bush or other work in connection with the sawmill and generally manage the sawmill at the request of the defendant and under the agreement of the first day of January, 1913?— Yes. Did the defendant undertake, if the plaintiff proceeded with the said work' and management, to obtain and instal within one month a suitable engine to replace the collapsed engine? — No. Did the defendant take all reasonable steps to procure and have installed a new engine upon the collapse of the engine in February, 1914? — Yes but there was undue delay in installation. Did the plaintiff acquiesce in the purchase of Durward's engine as a suitable engine to replace the collapsed engine I—Nu.1 — Nu. Was Durward's engine a suitable one ? — No. Was an agreement arrived at between the pTaintiff and the defendant, on or about the thirteenth day of •July. 1914, on the terms mentioned in 1 letter of the thirteenth day of July, 1914. written by the defendant to the lain tiff?— Yes. Was such agreement intended to he a full and final settlement of the mat;ts then in dispute between the ties?-.No-Did the plaintiff and one H. J.Hudd, acting in pursuance of the agreement mentioned in the previous issue, meet and make and conclude a valuation as mentioned in the. said letter of the 12th day of July, 1914?— Yes. The case was then adjourned to Oh visf church for further consideralinn. all questions as to costs being reserved, his Honor intimating (hat the imy had found as he -had anticipated.