SUPREME COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 60, 12 March 1868, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS, (Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) Thursday, -March 12. Krull and Owen v. Murdoch. This was an action by Messrs Krull and Owen, trustees of Mr C. Hartmann, formerly a merchant at Haveiock, for damages and pulling down a store and buildings at that place. Mr Pharazyn, with Mr H. Adams, appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr A. Pitt for the defendant. Mr Adams having opened the pleadings, Mr Pharazyn stated the case to the jury, and called Charles Hartmann, who proved that the store and buildings in question, were erected by him in 1864, and cost about £500; that it had been somewhat depreciated in consequence of the depression teen existing at Haveiock. He had agreed to sell it with the land, to Mr Chas. Leo, in July, 1866, for £430, the land being valued at £30. On cross-examination by Mr Pitt, Mr Hartmann stated that the store was built at the best time of Haveiock, the contract being made at Wellington. The sale to Leo was bona fide, both as to the store and the goods. Franz Kummer proved that he took possession of the store and other buildings as agent for the plaintifls in November, and that a man named Smith was in the store, keeping it for him, when the defendant broke into it, and the store and buildings were pulled down, Murdock apparently directing the affair. J, H. Smith proved the actual entry by the defendant. Mr Pitt objected that there was no evidence to go to the jury. His Honor overruled the objection. Mr Pitt having stated his defence, called Charles Leo, who stated that he paid far more for the store and stock in July, 1866, than they were worth; ..His wife was ill, and he could not attend to the business. He was charged £39 for seven bottles of champagne ; the land was worth £5. On being cross-examined by Mr Pharazyn, the witness said. he had never paid in full for the -tore. Counsel having respectively addressed the Jury, his Honor briefly summed up, and the Jury, after a short absence, found on all the issues for the plaintiffs, damages £300. .. The case Moffitt v; Sinclair, was proceeding when we went to .preso,and

would probably not be concluded until to-morrow morning.