SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXIV, Issue 1567, 20 December 1865, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Nisi I'm us. ; —+ — r Tihisdat, Dec. 19. 1 (Before Mr. Justice Gresson.) The first case called was HORNBROOK V. IIAROREAVIS, ( when Mr. Travers, for the plaintiff, informed - the Court that this case was left for arbitra- • tion. SHERIDAN V. BACK. The following gentlemen were sworn as a special jury Messrs. It. Symington (foreman), T. M. Hassall, Wra. Charlesworth, . James Field, A. F. N. Blakiston, Robt. Deane, i -A- Knight, J, L. Coster, and H. Montgomery. , His Honor said that the panel was deficient of one juror, and Mr. Tracers prayed a tales, . when Mr. C. W. Bishop entered the box. The following are the issues 1. Did the defendant convert to his own use, and wrongfully deprive plaintiff of the use of plaintiff 1 s goods, or any or them mentioned in the declaration ? 2. Were the sard goods at the time of the alleged conversion the goods of the plaintiff? 5. Did the sale mentioned in the declaration take place with the Isave of the plaintiff? 4. Is the plaintiff entitled to recover anj «id what sum from the defendant ? 6. Were the goods in the declaration mentioned the property, and in the possession of, W. Lee Matthews at the time of the alleged conversion? Mr. Duncan, with whom was Mr. Cottrell, appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Trareri for the defendant. Mr. Cottrell opened the case by stating that the plaintiff sued the defendant for converting to his own use and wrongfully selling sundry goods belonging to him. The damages were laid at £700. Thomas Sheridan—l am plaintiff in this case, and a candle manufacturer in Christchurch. I hare been a candle maker since 1841. I know one W. L. Matthews; he is a candle maker also. I worked for him for six months before he got into trouble. He ceased to be in the trade for a time, but I continued in it. He ceased to be in the trade when he went into prison about April, 1864. He sold to me a copper pan and metal pan, and 15 mould frames, 30 rods for making candles, one horse and cart, and harness, and some arms; about Are. There was a bill of sale executed by me and W. Lee Matthews. It was for £122 15s (bill 1 read) I took possession of the goods in the bill of sale, and I have them up to present time; but they were seized on by one Bobert Cresswell, for a debt due to him. The goods were seized by bailiffs. That is 7or 8 months ago. The goods were released, I paid the debt. I held the goods until Mr. Travers seized them?

that wag about July last. They were seized by the same man who seized them before. No warrant.was shewn me. I received a document from the bailiff who seized the goods. The articles seized were 33 mould frames, 19 casks tallow, 300 rods, 100 blocks, a dipping mould, hand-iron and machine, weighing machine, 2 metal pans, and a copper one, horse and cart and two sets of harnpgg, 30 dozen dip candles, and 15 or 16 dozen mould candles. They aU belonged to me. I obtained them all except the 15 frames, copper and small metal pan, horse and cart and one set of harness, from other sources. My work was stopped through the seizure about a fortnight. The goods were sold by Mr. Alport. I cautioned Mr. Alport that the said goods belonged to me, at the time of the sale, Mr. Alport said he was well aware of it, but he must obey the orders of the sheriff. They were sold to Matthews for £72 10s, I t.hinlr They were sold iu one lot, and there was only one bid. The property waa worth over £300. I suffered damage by being kept out of my business by the seizure. I suffered through the refusal of the butchers to give me credit for tallow monthly as before; they made me pay cash. And I lost about £20 otherwise. Besides this, I lost customers. A servant of mine left and set up for himself taking iway some of my customers. He left me before the seizure, but started lor luring the seizure. Sonie of my customers told me they had left me because, I was not ible to supply them. I can only recollect Mr. Low ther telling me this. By Mr. Travers ; the goods are now in my jossession. They belong to Mr. Alexander Matthews. He holds a bill of sale over them lor securing the purchase money of them. [ do not know whether, when Creswell seized, N. L. Matthews claimed the horseaud cartas lis property. On the day of the sale, I saw a aan named Davis, and Mr. Fielder, and W. L,ee Matthews. I did not give Davis 30s. not 0 bid at the sale, but I believe such a thing ras done. I was not in partnership with W. j. Matthews at the time of this seizure. I :now W. L. Matthews has been convicted of elony and bestiality. The imprisonment I iave referred to, was for that offence. I paid he balance of the money for the goods when latthews returned from the diggings, I adanced him £30 when he was going to the iggings, for which I have a receipt. Alexander Back—l am the defendant in tils action. About July last, 1 seized the oods mentioned in the declaration. They r ere seized by my officers under a warant I issued. I have the warrant, (warsuit produced). I think the bailiffs did

make an inventory or return of the goods they seized iu this case. It ia customary to make such a return. I instructed Mr. Alport to sell this property. It is usual to send the inventory to the auctioneer wuh my instructions. I hare no recollection of this individual case, but I have uo doubt I sent one. I have seen Mr. Alport's account sales, (account sales produced). The amount sued for is less than the amount returned by the auctioneer, I gave a cheque for the balance. Between the time I seized the goods and that of the sale, I received two notices from Mr. Cottrell ' that the goods seized were Sheridan's (notices produced). I sold the goods, because I had seized the same goods in the action of Sheridan and Cresswell, and part of them were then claimed by Matthews. I believed Matthews was the rightful owner. W. JU Matthews.—l know the plaintiff. I have beeu a candle maker in Christchurch. The plaintiff was once in my employ. I left the province in May 1864. Before leaving I sold plaintiff all my plant. (Bill of sale produced.) He took possession and gave me jE6 on account. (A document was here shown to. witness which he said was the receipt.) I returned on May 26, 1865, and I worked for Sheridan at candle naking, as workman for wages. An action was raised against me at the instance of Mr. Papperill. I allowed judgment to go against me. The same goods were seized by Richardson's men. Davis was one of them. I saw the warrant. They seized Sheridan's goods. They were part of the goods I had sold in 1864, and part not. The goods were sold. I told them at the time they were not miue. I think the value of the,articles sold is £500 I had no interest in the goods thus sold. At the sale I did not claim a horse or horses, and did not tell the sheriff or his officers that the goods were mine. I did, previously to the seizure, tell one of the bailiffs that I had pur-

chased a horse from Alex. Matthews, and showed the receipt. That was about June I think. By Mr. Travers : I said that I had bought the horse. I gave him to understand that it was mine. Before the sale, Ido not remember having a conversation with Daris about the sale. Sheridan was present and Davis also. I do not know that it was arranged that Matthews should buy the property, or that 30s were offered to Davis for any purpose. At the time of sale, Sheridan owed me some money for rent. Alexander Matthews: lam a grocer, in Christchurch. There was a sale on Mr. Creswell's premises in July last. The goods were put up in one lot; I bought them for £100. I since lent them to Sheridan, under a written agreement, for £20 a year

rental, for two years; and as soon as he could repay me the £100 I had advanced, he tould have the goods back again. He has not paid the £100. By Mr. Travers: I knovr Davis. I met him at the sale. I spoke to him. Re-examined: Plaintiff might have been within hearing. I did not give Davis ony money, nor did anybody in my presei ;e. I did not, on plaintiff's authority, offer Davis 80s not to bid. Plaintiff might have been there. Davis asked me if I wanted to buy anything. Plaintiff must have been present when I talked with Davis. I might say he •w»s. Plaintiff did speak to me about buying the goods. He wanted me to buy some of them—candle moulds, coppers, &c." He commissioned me to buy them. I attended the sale in consequence of his request. I asked the auctioneer to put the goods up in one lot. I wis the ouly bidder. Plaintiff was present wfien I bid, I believe. He gave me some reasons why he wished me to buy the goods. He said he had not got the money to pay for them himself. Robert Swan, examined : I was at a sale «t Sheridan's premises in July last. Sheridan was present. I heard him caution the auctioneer against selling his goods. This terminated the plaintiff's case. Mr. Travers, having shortly addressed the jury on the behalf of his client, called H. Fielder: lam a publican. I know the plaintiff. I have known him a long while. I know W. L. Matthews. He was some time ago in prison. Before that he carried on business as a candlcmaker. While he was in prison the business was carried on by Sheridan. I remember Matthews going to the diggings and returning. I have heard conversation between Sheridan and Matthews relating to a partnership, since his return from the diggings. I was told by Sheridan that there was a partnership between them. There was a signboard at the manufactory. They took a shop to go partners in soap, and candles, &c. A board was put up with Sheridan and Co. on it. I had conversation with Sheridan about proceedings taken against him by your office. After you sued Sheridan he said in my house that you was suing Matthews and him for a debt. I advised them to take the board down. I thought it wrong of Sheridan to go partners with Matthews after his disgracing himself. He said he was sorry he had. I was at the sale of the goods ;so were plaintiff and the two Matthews'. A man called Swan was there, and Davis. There was some conversation between Swan, Davis, myself, and A. Matthews. Mr. Swan and Matthews said to Davis they would give him 30s. not to bid at the sale. The property was put up in one lot, at the request of several persons. A. Matthews was amongst them. The partnership was after Matthews returned from the diggings and after Mr. Travers saed Matthews.

By Mr. Duncan : I heard first that they ware partners about a month or six weeks after Matthews returned from the Picton diggings. Plaintiff said so in my house. No one else was present but him and me. I could not say whether there was never any one else present when Sheridan said this ; he said it several times. He said he was a partner with Matthews. He first said he was going into partnersliip about six weeks after h« came from the diggings. Ido not know if the board was taken down.

Re-examined: When I had a store I dealt with plaintiff and with Matthews. Several persons as well as me were told that there was a partnership. J. Ruddenklau : Mr. Sheridan is a tenant of mine. \V. L. Matthews took the Bhop from me first. That was in June, about the 27th. It was taVpn for Sheridan and Matthews. Sheridan signed an agreement and so did Matthews. A fortnight afterwards Sheridan said the partnership was at an end. He found Matthews was in debt. He asked me to draw out an agreement in his own name, and 1 did. The other agreement was destroyed. The shop was taken to sell candles, and afterwards grocery. Matthews said that he and Sheridan were going to take the shop together. I live dose by the shop. I have not seen Sheridan and Co., painted above the shop. If it had been, I should have seen it. Mr. Sheridan has occupied the shop since the 27th Juns ; he has paid the rent. fIL E. Alport: I acted as auctioneer for Ealing the effects mentioned in this suit. Plaintiff was present. A general request was made that I should put the goods up in one lot. Davis asked this and several others. Swan was there, and A. Matthews. The goods were bought by A. Matthews. I attempted to sell the goods in detail, but had no bidders. I should have valued the tallow and boilers at £40, and the candles at £12, and the whole at about £105. (The account were produced to the Court.) 'By Mr. Duncan: Sheridan said he protested against the sale. He said they were his goods, and not Matthews'. George Taylor: lam a clerk in Mr. Travers' office. I have recently seen a ngn-board over a candle shop in Colombo •treet. Sheridan and Co. is written on it. I saw it five minutes ago.

Thomas Bolton: I sometimes act as a bailiff. Iso acted in Creswell v. Sheridan, Mr. Matthews claimed the horae in that case, not Matthews, the grocer ; he was living with Sheridan. I told the bailiff of that claim.

By Mr. Duncan : Sheridan was not present when Matthews claimed the horse. Ido not remember telling Sheridan of it. Mr, Travers addressed the jury for the defence, and Mr. Duncan replied at considerable length. His Honor gummed up, directing the jury to dwell mainly on the question of partnership raised ; bat cautioning them not to give too much weight to the word '' Co." on the signboard, as such an addition was often made to a tradesman's name to give weight to hjs business. The jury retired for about an hour, and then returned a verdict for plaintiff, damages £120. The Court then adjourned till ten o'clock to-day.