SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LI, Issue 5589, 23 January 1879, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Wednesday, Jan. 22. (Before His Honor Mr Just ice Johnston a Special Jury.) ’ lr:^ Hendkuson t. Napieb llarrocr j» o4i The trial of this case was resum*/'. 10 a.tn. ' The Attorney-General, with him M> for the plaintiff, Mr Macasscy, with him V' G. Harper, for the defendants. i r His Honor said that he would the consideration of the learned counsel both sides, whether the finding of the ; u ° n might not be taken on two points J !u Whether there had been fraudulent coliaaio on the part of the Board and the Engineer 3 and (2) supposing the jury should be r{ opinion that there had been no whether there had been improper condo* short of fraud. If this were done it WOu ;,j materially shorten the case, and divest it *' much of its complicated character; and if the jury found in the negative the remainder of the case would fall. Mr Bees said that the new paragraph in the declaration would have to be considered as it contained substantial cause of action. ’ His Honor said that there might be somr thing in that. Mr Macassey then gummed up the evidence on the part of the defendants. Mr Bees, in the absence of the Attorney. General, replied on the whole case. 1 His Honor summed up at great length. The jury by consent retired to consider the following issues, and found as follows: Has the defendant’s engineer fraudulently in collusion with the defendants and by the'.procurement refused to certify to the amount due upon the said contract and for the extras additions, alterations and omissions under the said contract ? Yes. The Foreman said that the jury did not wish it to be understood that in their opinion there was any moral fraud. Did the defendants wrongfully and improperly, and without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff alter the site of theworh known as the western embankment or mole mentioned and described in the plans and specifications, and did they order the plaintiff to construct the said western mole on the said altered site ? Yes. Did the plaintiff, not knowing that the site had been altered, proceed to construct, and did he continue to construct the said western mole on such altered siie? Yes, without sufficient ixntimation up to April 2, 1877. Was the plaintiff thereby put to extra trouble and expense, and had he to supply large quantities of stone not provided for ii the contract hereinbefore mentioned, and was he delayed in the completion of his said contract, and did he incur loss thereby ? Yes. Some discussion took place as to whether the expression of the jury that there was “ no moral fraud ” was to be regarded as part and parcel of their verdict, and the question was ultimately referred back to the jury. The jury again retired, and on their return into Court found simply “ Yes ” without any modification.

One of the jury who was ill was then discharged from further attendance, it being understood that the remaining eleven would be in attendance the following morning, when it is probable that some attempt will be made to come to an arrangement as to the sums (if any) to be awarded. The Court then adjourned until 10 o’clock this morning.