SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIII, Issue 1414, 17 June 1865, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

Thuksdat, June 15. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Gresaon.) AICKIN V. JIEALEY. A special jury, comprising the following gentlemen—Messrs. A Knight (foreman), E. D. Byrne, T. M. Hassal, R. Browne, M. Sprot, F. H. Tipping, T. H. Potts, E. C. Hilton, J. Field, E. B. Bishop, H. Goulstone, and J. Millton, was impanelled. Mr. Duncan and Mr. J. S. Williams appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Garrick for the defendant. The following are the issues:— 1. Was the agreement in the declaration mentioned, entered into by Henry Selfe Selfe, being thereunto authorised by instructions under the hand of the defendant a» Superintendent of the said province, issued by the advice of the Executive Council thereof. 2. Did the plaintiff, after the said coatract, and before the alleged breach, misconduct himself by wilfully disobeying the reasonable orders of the Provincial Government of the Province of Canterbury, given to the plaintiff in the said service by the Provincial Secretary of the said province, representing the Provincial Government in that behalf. 3. Did the defendant wrongfully and without reasonable excuse dismiss the plaintiff from the office of Provincial Engineer, as in the declaration mentioned. 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendant any and what damages in respect of such wrongful dismissal. Mr. Garrick applied for leave to strike out the first issue. His Honor remarked that this would be the best course to pursue. Mr. Garrick : I am instructed by the Government to state that it is their wish that I should avoid any legal technicalities ; they wish to have the case tried upon its own merits. The issue was struck out. Mr. Garrick applied that the third issue should be struck out; it was totally immaterial. Mr. Duncan objected; the issue contained the gist of the whole matter. His Honor thought that, according to the case of Lush v. Russell, the issue was a proper one. Mr. Garrick wished that the words " without reasonable cause" should be struck out of the issue. Mr. Duncan objected to the proposed alteration.

The words were ultimately struck out. Mr. Williams opened the case for the plaintiff, explaining that this was a case in which Mr. G. Aickin was the plaintiff, and bis Honor the Superintendent of Canterbury, as representing the province, was the defendant. Mr. Williams read the agreement between the parties, which was to the effect that the plaintiff was engaged as Engineer to the Provincial Government at a salary of £850 per annum, with an allowance for travelling expenses. The agreement was to be terminated by three months' notice on either side. It was alleged in the declaration that the plaintiff had entered upon the duties of his office, from which he had been wrongfully dismissed. As a compensation for this the plaintiff claimed £5000 as damages. Mr. Williams called

George Aickin, who stated : I am plaintiff in thio action. I was formerly an engineer in England. I left on April 7, 1864. I had been in practice as an engineer for some time previously—about twenty years.

His Honor: I believe there is no want of skill im puted to the plaintiff.

Mr. Garrick: None at all, your Honor ; the only imputation is that he was not a civil engineer. (Laughter.)

Examination continued: I entered into the agreement set forth in the declaration. The agreement produced is the one I sigeed. In pursuance of that agreement I came to New Zealand, arriving in July, 1864. On ray arrival, I reported myself at the Public Works Office. I saw Mr. Turner, the chief clerk. I afterwards saw the Secretary for Public Works. 1 asked him for a memorandum stating the nature of my duties. I received some official instructions : very few of the works mentioned in the memorandum came under my notice. I examined and reported upon the Timaru Roadstead; I also reported upon the Lyttelton Harbour Works. Both Mr. Hall and the Provincial Secretary gave me instructions with regard to some architectural works. I made some plans, but I did not consider that such works came within the sphere of my duties. I made a design for alterations to the Lunatic Asylum, for the Police Barracks, and for the Lock-up at Christchurch. I had some communication with the Provincial Secretary with reference to the latter work. I received the letter produced from the Provincial Secretary. (Letter rCad.) I also received the letter produced from Mr. Hall. (Letter with reference to the Lock-up at Christchurch, put in and read; it was dated Nov. 12,1864.) I received the letter produced from the Provincial Secretary; it is dated Nov. *25, 1864. In reply, I addressed the letter produced to the Sercetary for Public Works, with reference to the Lock-up. The letter was returned to me, with an endorsement that the Provincial Secretary desired to see the plans. Afterwards, I received from the Provincial Secretary the letter produced; it is dated Nov. 30. It desired me to forward at once the. plans and specilicaions which I had prepared for the Lock-up. On Dec. I, 1 sent a letter to the Provincial Secretary, to the effect that, whilst I was anxious to afford the Government every assistance in my power, I must decline to allow my plans to be sent in to the Government, either for approval or otherwise. The custom was not in force in England; and, in the course of a long practice, I had never known such a course to be pursued. I thought it due to the dignity of my profession to decline to comply with the requirements of the Government that any official document should be sent in to the Government for approval or otherwise. I was willing to do so as a matter of courtesy, but I would not concede it as a right. In reply to this communication, I received a letter from the Provincial Secretary, dated Dec. 7, dismissing me from my office, and informing me that my salary would cease from that date. I left the offices of the Government in consequence. The letter assigned as a reason for my dismissal that I had refused to obey the distinct orders of the Government. (Letter read). I demanded an interview with the Executive. I believe that I had some communications with Mr. Hall on the subject of my dismissal. The following is the correspondence above referred to " Public Works Office, Nov. 25, 18G4. " Silt,—l have the honour to request that you will be good enough to forward to this office the plans and specification for the lock-up at the Police Barracks in Hereford street. " I have, &c., , „ " Wm. Rollkston, " tor the Secretary of Public Works." j " Provincial Engineer's Office, Nov. 26, 1864. " Sik,—l have the honour to request the favour of being informed for what purpose the drawings and specifications of the proposed lock-up are required. They are made in accordance with instructions, and at an estimated cost of .£4OO. "I have, &c. C*ino. Aiokin, Provincial Engineer." '' En dor semen —The Provincial Secretary wishes to see them.—W R." Noted.—G.A. " Provincial Secretary's Office, Nov. 30, 1864. a \ S 1 "'—* ' mve to direct that you forward, without delay, the plans and specifications of the lock-up at Christchurch, as directed in tny minute of the 27th mst. " I have, &c.j " Wm. liOLUCBTON." " Provincial Engineer's Office, Dec. 1, 1864. t ,"? IR :r r ? r0,1,y tw « v<mr communication No. 1125, haTe t,le hwwur to inform you that, while I am

willing to afford the Government every possible information, not only on general principle# of construction, but also in detail, and as the drawings an( j specifications are always open to inspection here where they can be seen, I cannot admit the right of any member of the Government demanding professional documents for approval or otherwise, and for which I. as the head of my department, am alone responsible. It is a most unusual course to pursue It is not done in any Government offlc; j n England None of my predecessors were required to so ; and in a private practice, extending over twelve years averaging £10,000 per annum, I was never once asked to do such a thing. " I think it necessary to uphold the dignity of my profession and my office, and am therefore forced to decline as a right what I should always be most willing to concede as a matter of courtesy. " I have, &c\, " Geo. Aickin, Provincial Engineer." " Provincial Secretary'* Office, Dee. 7, igf-,4. " Sib,—l am directed by his Honor the Superintendent to inform you that after consideration of your letter, No. ,in which you refuse to obey the direction* of the Provincial .Secretary, and statethat you cannot admit the right of any member of the Government demanding professional documents for approval or otherwise, his Honor, with the advice of his Executive Council, directs that you be missed from the service of the Provincial Government, and that your salary and employment cease from this date. " I have, Sic.., " WM. Roixeston, Provincial Secretary. " G. Aickin, Esq." Mr. Duncan: Do you, as a professional man, consider that the architectural works in question came within the sphere of your duties ? Mr. Garrick objected to the question. Mr. Aickin could have no experience on the matter; he had only recently been appointed to the office. It was virtually calling upon an inexperienced person to give evidence as an expert. Examination continued: I had an understanding with Mr. Selfe as to the nature of my duties. A long discussion took place whether Mr. Duncan should be-allowed to ask the witness whether he considered that the execution of the architectural works formed part of the contract made between him and Mr. Selfe. His Honor remarked that the terms of the contract were very ambiguous: the office of Provincial Engineer of Canterbury was not by any means clearly defined. The question was not put. Examination continued: I left the office the next day after the reception of the letter of dismissal. Mv salary was paid up to that date. I have received altogether something like £500. My reasons for not sending in the plans, &c., were— Mr. Garrick objected to the witness answering that question. The reasons were clearly stated in his letter addressed to the Government. Objection allowed. Examination continued: I had some communications with Mr. Hall on the subject of the architectural works. I strongly objected to Mr. Hall's altering my plans. This was previous to my dismissal. I received no communication from Mr. Hall with reference to architectural work forming any part of my duties.

A discussion ensued as to the terms of the contract made by Mr. Selfe with Mr. Aickin; and as to the question whether the former had given the plaintiff a definite description of the nature of the duties of the office of Provincial Engineer. Mr. Garrick remarked that he was placed in a very difficult position. The ex parte statement of the plaintiff was the only evidence before the Court, and he had no opportunity of testing the correctness of that statement by means of the examination of Mr. Selfe. His Honor remarked that it appeared to him that the question was whether the defendant would be bound by the acts of Mr. Selfe. Mr. Duncan considered that he would be bound by the acts of Mr. Selfe, but that he would have his remedy against the latter gentleman as agent. Examination continued : Before the contract was signed I had a conversation with Mr. Selfe, with reference to my duties as Provincial Engineer. Mr. Selfe stated, in the presence of myself and Mr. Stephenson, that architectural work formed no portion of the duties of the office of the Provincial Engineer of Canterbury. Mr. Selfe stated that the chief duties were bridge-making and road-making ; he said that I should have nothing to do with the Harbour-works, as a special engineer would be sent out for the purpose. He gave me no other general ideas of the duties of the office. (A copy of the instructions to Mr. Selfe, dated October 14th, with reference to the appointment of a Provincial Engineer was put in and read. The instructions specified that all such duties as are usually discharged by a Civil Engineer, should be undertaken by the person appointed.) Neither Mr. Bray nor Mr. M'Candlish were present on the occasion of my conversation with Mr. Selfe; myself and Mr. G. K. Stephenson only were present. I have received no other appointment since I left the Government employment; I hare received very slight employment as an engineer since doing so. 1 have looked for employment, and have opened an .office.

Cross-examined: lam not awaiting the result of this action previously to entering into partnership j with Mr. Wright. The partnership does not depend e upon the result' of the action ; but more will proj bably be known about the partnership as soon as the a trial is decided. I have not postponed the considerition of the partnership until the termination of this p action. I have been looking after some of Mr. Wright's works, but not as a paid servant ; I am acting as an amateur in so doing. lam not in partI nership with Mr. Wright. I suppose that I shall j be remunerated for the work ; it is quite uncertain whether I shall he so. It is just as likely that I shall be paid by Mr. Wright as that I should have [ received remuneration from the Provincial Government had my contract with them been carried out. I undertook Mr. Wright's work with the expectation of remuneration, but the amount is problemati- " cal. I have not been able to find work because the ' Government have all the engineer's work in their hands. I recollect writing the note to the Provincial | Secretary to know why he wanted to see my plans. I noted the minute on the letter on the same day. I [ cannot recollect if I held any communication with ; the Government on the subject of the plans between the dates of the letters of the 27th and the .'to:h Nov. I believe that my letter declining to send the plans was the only communication I had with the | heads of the department. I prepared the plans > f ° r [ the Lunatic Asylum, and for the lock-up,at \\ annate and at Oxford. I decidedly consider that the preparation of these plans wa* architectural work. 1 consider myself fully competent to discharge such duties. I attained that competency through practice, but I cannot jay that I have done so through study Stud}' would be required to obtain a competency sufficient to enable a person to prepare the plans for such works as those in question. Mr. .Duncan objected to this line of cross-.'xamina-tion. His Honor, subject to explanations on the part of Mr. Garrick, should agree with Mr. Duncan. Mr. Garrick contended that it was his intention to test the credibility and the competency of the witness by his own statements. Cross-examination continued : I was in partnership for twelve years with a gentleman, I doing the engineering portion of the business, and he the architectural portion. In this way 1 derived m) architectural knowledge. Previously, I had no such knowledge. Civil engineering comprises such a knowledge of the principles of architecture as would enable a person to undertake such works us 1 was employed by the Government to do. I should not have attempted to carry out such works if 1 hart not had the benefit of my connection with nn partner. I was never at any time an architectural draftsman. Since looking qt my I believe that no communication passed between myself and the Government between 30 and Dee. 1. The alterations at the Kaiapoi Court-house were made under my direction. always submitted all preliminary plans to the heads of the department. The Provincial Secretary was then acting in the stead of the Secretary for Public Wt rks. I did not forward the plans of the lock-up, &c., to the Government. I see by my letter-hook that I issued an advertisement calling for tenders for the execution of the works. I forwarded the letter with reference to the advertisement, without at the same lime forwarding the plans. Mr. Ihi was at that time absent in Auckland. The P' an ® and specifications for the works had been got eut at that time. 1 believe that the signature attached to the document now put into my hand is that of M r - Doyne. The document contains general specifications and conditions of certain works to be execute for the Government, but it does not contain either detailed plans or detailed specifications. I believe that the regulations in the Gazette, produced, are those which controlled the duties of my office have acted on them, because they had been acfeu upou by my predecessors. Ido not recollect having on any occasion refused to be hound by them. A discussion ensued as to whether the regulation* of the Government Department should be put in-

jf r Duncan objected to the document containing ruled that the regulations might be put • ind they were read accordingly. ' examination continued : I most distinctly J£r'that a special plan was prepared for the Schurch lock-up ; I saw it done. I have had differences of opinion with the Secretary for Works on the question of submitting my , .tn him • I strongly objected to do so, and lie ** : -t>l that I should ; this is the whole secret of i never refused to get out any plans or ■lemons previously to my dismissal; I mo>t SpC Jil!n,*v did so subsequently. 1 consulted my legal ? ireviotis to my dismissal. t« vimined: I have read the regulations in the . /V There is a memorandum in the office statas the office of Secretary for Public Works in £- . ' ' established, all communication from the J l !. r ' s Heoartment should be made to that and not to the office of the Provincial Secrethat memorandum was in force prior to my

al Thi!'wa« the case for the plaintiff. V vml Dobs.'" : lam engineer for the railway ; t «'civil engineer by profession. I know nothing •,f tlic Christcburoh look-up. or of those of either ( It would require some knowOsforu o • f architect to construct similar ledcc on or^s , lot involving decorative architecw „i i f,,il within the profession and scope of a " ,re , * < 1«T I tare b«A vcrj bu.y .inr* the yoat 1 was arliclcl. I Mi! the office of I'm- • • i r.i.'inocr for nine years. My duties were to TI ? C11 1, of the whole of the public works of the take i • , in „ those of a decorative character, protuiu. • 1 f v - atc l,-houses nnd lock-ups. ThC C °"-d n< 10.. would fall within the sphere of lunaju a\\ . \ j( . v 0 ,|, at ] i, u ilt the first lock-up in my duui>. . m)t hj n g of a decorative H ,e 'Tr- bmU'neb buildings. ;T n ,'n-r • I ani afraid, Mr. Garrick, that we ' i ' l ~, , l v .. t 'come to that point in Canterbury, at ft Xt vis the rule of the office that all plans, * should be submitted to the Executive; there &c.. snoUlu . .U) t ] ie profession m doing so. <e.,der» for »orl= If.talthe Kxm.t.ve,' I .honW coni it vitv improper to do so. In my time all ad,U,ven't« raL-d through the hands of the Exeveru>eii.e -1 i iouslv j nspe eted and approved c f',! u nl l i nia ae the alterations to the Lyttelton rJI the public buildings at Ataroa and the CourtSeat Kaiapoi. &0.. were executed under my su- : Many public buildings such as w-luros. fortifications. &c, fall under the f m of i civil engineer : decorative architecture, r'r cs i & <\ do rT never refused to do any architectural work unless durino mv last vear of office. I was then only Un- ,■ t" m,l no' acting as a Provincial Lnsultnv- V.ngmeer ana no.. l . . „ sinwr. 1 nominally lul.l the Utter omu .Mr. W S was appointed to assist me. I refused to undertake architectural work, because I had an Assists Engineer. I know the plaintiff : I cannot say ifhe hid an Assistant Engineer. I resigned m June • 'Mr. Wvlde was then Assistant Engineer I do not know 'when he resigned. During the last vear of tnv term. I chanred the Government a commission on architectural work : as I was only consulting Engineer, I declined to do work unless remunerated for it. I made the charge because such wo** did not come within mv province. Any one who takes charge of the duties of Provincial Engioijrr 1 ]t, in ruv opinion, to undertake the execution'of architectural works as I have men- : The performance of such works as I have alluded to ought to be undertaken by the Provincial Engineer. Such works are usually put in the haDds of civil engineers.andnotintothoseofarchiteots. My salary began at £300 per annum,and was gradually'raised until it reached £600. My salary as Provincial Engineer ceased when I became Railway Engineer; it was passed in the Government books as the salarv of the Railway Engineer, and not as that of Provincial Engineer. £100 per annum was allowed roe for travelling expenses.

The Hon. J. Hall: I am Secretary for Public \Vnrk= in Canterbury ; I was so at the time of the plaintiff"g appointment. The custom was, that the plans. &e., were prepared from the instructions of the Government in the Engineer's office. They were generally sent up tor the approval of the Executive. The plans always came before me or before the Executive previously to their being executed. This was the general rule, but it depended upon the importance of the works. I had frequent difficulties with Mr. Aickin in this respect. I insisted upon his submitting his plans to me. I remember one case in particular—that of the proposed lock-up at Oxford. I know Mr. Dome: he has the building of the Rakaia Bridge, and the planning of the Great Southern Railway. The document in my hands is a specification of the designs of the Rakaia Bridge ; ,it is fully detaile 1. even to the smallest minutiae. The other document contains detailed accounts of the conditions outside the works. Tne third document contains the specifications of the railway to the Rakaia. It contains both the general and detailed specifications; in fact, those on which the work will be executed. In my absence, the Provincial Secretary takes charge of my department, and vice versa. This was the case for the defence.

Mr. Harriet addressed the jury, stating that the cise before them was exactly the same as the relation between masters and servants. In both cases, if the person contracting'to do any allotted work failed to carry out his contract, he was subject to dismissal. [Mr. Garrick reviewed the case, mentioning the main facts of it.] He should contend that the plaintiff's case w.is one utterly devoid of such merits as would entnie any man to come into Court and claim compensation at the hands of a jury. He could not see what claim the plaintiff had for redress. His dismissal was altogether his own doing ; it w«s altogether due to a wilful act of disobedience of reasonable orders. He had treated the communication of the head of the Government with the most sovereign contempt, and when pressed to comply with the ordinary rules of the office, he sent an impertinent letter, reiving, apparently, upon some punctilious notifies of the dignity of his profession. The demand that the plans should be submitted to the Executive before tenders for the execution of the work should have been invited, was a very just and reasonable one. Mr. Aickin had, by iiis conduct, far more lowered his professional dignity than if he had endeavoured to promote the cultivation of those feelings of friendly courtesy which ought to characterise the relations between & superior and inferior officer. He (the speaker) ihould put it to the jury as a matter of common sense if the plaintiff had not, in fact, thrown down the gauntlet by way of ascertaining if he was compelled to submit his plans to theconsideration of the Executive. Again, why did lie not, at the outset of his official Carter, object to such work as he did not consider to fall within the province of his office ? Mr. Aickin's j evidence was utterly valueless, as from his recent | arrival lie could have had no experience as to the j course pursued by his official predecessors. Hh statements on this point were contradicted by the clear evidence of Mr. Dobson. He should repeat that the plaintiff had been guilty of a wilful act of uisobtdience to a reasonable order, and had been therefore rightly dismiss d, and was not entitled to any compensation. Mr. Garrick concluded by citing some cases bearing upon the law of 'masters and servants, which he contended was precisely identical w itli the principle involved in the present action. Mr. Duncan, in reply, read some portions of i> nntli s work upon the law of masters and servants. e replied to the arguments of Mr. Garrick, who, e lemarked, had cited very adroitly the (rases which *6 perhaps considered bore upon the present action ; fc (Mr. 'J.) should argue that those cases'- were r?. anil '"gouv with the one now before the jury, dr. r, f ; uncan ' iere reviewed the facts of the case, th 0 .. ! ' K '' i(: at,ent ' on the jury to the nature of j,' 1 ""raet under which the plaintiff had accepted tW° i ' >r( ' v ' nc ' a ' Engineer.] He should assert the plaintiff bad suffered a great wrong in con■quenee of his peremptory dismissal Besides, he . °. fen to perform work which he bad una stl '! u ' atL 'd to undertake. He was engaged to fh. <r ! c w " r k purely an engineering cha'acter, n ft ? r » In the seven heads under which his apP n eu work was divided, not the slighter mention ar( l ' t,!c tural work whatever. For his own tmvis'. Ie * ,u ' ( * contend that even if the Government had i S liower of dismissing the plaint iff, they bfen e ' l P. by the correspondence which had cir.it .r ln ,i :o " rf ' to ' lilV(; acted with undue prerid of it" 1 i^' ev 'dently been anxious to get Belvfc rV' an( * hail eagerly availed thi-m----dirfpti!' , 11S I *}PP urt,nt refusal to comply with their contnJl'!-' not refused obedience in any Rive il'i'T Sl " rit 5 ,U! 1,11(1 1,00,1 Perfectly tion in l. 1 Tl)V ° rnn,e "t every advice and inforniairom hir,. n ' I()Wer ' provided thai they were asked as a rii itJ 18 H "? !lt,er °* courtesy, and not demanded under ; r . of rUiht - Kv "" i( ' »>«« I'tnintiif had, been i.'-iitv''P^P 1 ' 011 the duties of his office, reasonable or.'er 'i,; Sl ' g,lt ' dis " l,edit ' ,,ce of a justify his r '• , en( ' c Wfl!) "ot so great as to "Whieh : t ii '* 10 :, '" m "iary manner in •t h,d been effected l,y the Government. Mr.

Duncan concluded by citing some casei in which a different view of the interpretation of the law relative to the dismissal of servants from those qqoted by Mr. Garrick, had been arrived at by some of the English legal authorities.

3 Ilis Honor summed up the evidence, dwelling upon I the more salient features of the ease, nnd explaining : the state of the law with reference to the rel ill ions ' of masters and servants. Ho remarked that the Act i under which the action had been brought, was a f badly-drawn and ill-constructed one. He expressed • his gratification that the Government had, in the exercise of a wise discretion, waived their right to I rely upon the many technical difficulties which might easily have arisen from the faulty wording of ■ the Act, and had preferred that the ease should he tried upon its own merits. Thanks to this prudent i line of conduct, the question had in reality narrowed itself into a very small compass. He must direct them that the plaintiff had been guilty of kn act of disobedience to an order, and it was for them to decide whether the order given to him was a reasonable one. Should they decide in favour of the plaintiff, the damages awarded to him need not be the whole amount which would have been due to him if the whole term of his engagement had been served, but might he diminished by any sum which he might be supposed to have earned during the interim. His Honor read over the evidence, commenting upon it as he proceeded. The jury, after retiring for about three-quarters of an hour, returned into < 'ourt, and stated that there appeared to be no probability of their agreeing as to their verdict. His Honor remarked that he regretted to hear this: he hoped that they would shortly agree, otherwise he had no alternative but to order them to be locked up. The jury returned into court, and stated that they were agreed as to their verdict. The foreman stated that they found that the plaintiff had been guilty of wilful disobedience of a reasonable order, and that he had been rightfully dismissed; but that he was entitled to £700 damages as a compensation. His Honor remarked that he could not accept the verdict. It was against the evidence, and was evidently a conclusion of their own at which they ! had arrived. They must retire again, and reconsider their verdict. The jury re-entered the Court at 8.20 p.m. The foreman stated that they were unanimous in their verdict. They were of opinion that the plaintiff received a reasonable order, which he had no intention of wilfully disobeying, and consequently had not misconducted himself. His Honor remarked that the verdict was against his ruling, and would, he feared, lead to great litigation, but there was no remedy. The jury had better fix the amount of damages, so as to avoid a new trial. The foreman then read the remaining portion of the verdict, which was to the effect that the plaintiff was wrongfully dismissed, and was entitled to £700 damages. His Honor observed that the verdict was neither a special one, nor one founded upon the issues. They must find either in the affirmative or in the negative upon the issues. He had directed them to find that the plaintiff had been guilty of wilful disobedience of an order, leaving it to the jury to decide whether the order was a reasonable one. He had no wish to coerce them ; it was their duty to deduce conclusions from the evidence laid before them, but they must take the law frotn him. They had better reconsider their finding. Did they find " Yes " or " No" upon the second issue ? The jury finally found in the affirmative upon the second and third issues, and on the last issue they found that the plaintiff was entitled to £700 damages. His Honor remarked that he must accept the verdict, but it was totally unintelligible to him. It was jut asserting that black was white, and white black. It was the strangest verdict he had ever heard in all his experience, and he hoped that there would not be many more such. The case, which occupied the whole day, apparently excited considerable interest, the Court being crowded. Several members of the Government and of the Provincial Council were present.

The Court adjourned sine die,