DISTRICT COURT.—Friday.

New Zealand Herald, Volume IV, Issue 1143, 13 July 1867, Page 6

DISTRICT COURT.— Friday.

- V (Before His Honor, Judge Beckham.) A. special sitting of this Court was held yesterday, when the following business was disposed Of:— a SHOES V. HUNTBB AND DUNNET. Claim £10 , . Mr. Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Gillies for defendant Mr. Hunter, and Mr. Macdonald for Mr. Dunnet.

Mr. Whitaker called, _ John Short, junior, who deposed that he resided at the Wairoa, and was a farmer. On the 11th March witness bought some cattle from the defendants and received an account from their clerk (account produced); the last four mentioned in the account were tlie'subject of this action. Paid for the cattle on the following day. Had never received delivery of tho cattle, they were sold by auction by Mr. Huntar. Cross-examined by Mr. Gillies : I did apply to Mr. Hunter previously with the view of purchasing some of the cattle when he demanded '£6 10s for the three. I bought two at auction, and afterwards Mr. Dunnett came to me and said there were two more head belonging to the same shipment which he desired to sell in order to send down the bill of sale. On looking at the cattle told T»im that one was worth only £1 10s, and the other worth £5 10s.- Did not .tell -him that he had held any previous conversation witli his partner about the cattle. Nothing was said about shares. Gave a promissory note in payment for the cattle. On the Tuesday following Mri-Hunter told witness that he had sold the cattle, and that witness had no business to buy them from Mr. Dunnett. Mr. Hunter said some time after that he Would not be a party to depnving the rightful ..owner of the full Tame of the cattle. I bought a portion of the cattle on condition that I was to be _ allowed Is -6d- a week for grazing them, b'.il nothing was said about division of the profits. : Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald : The first lot:of cattle mentioned were to be purchased •on'partnership terms. I was to be allowed a. -certain sum for grazing, and when they were sold the profits were to be divided. I gave "M~f. Dunnett a three months' bill for the whole, but told him nothing of theprice which they Wd ' been offered at Joy Mr. Hunter; William Hunter, examined by Mr. Whitaker, -deposed that he sold the cattle ,in dispute, for £29; on the day following that on which Mr. Short had bought them from Mr. Dunnett. Cross esamined by Mr. Gillies:. Mr. Short applied to' purchase the cattle on the- sth of March. Witness asked £8 for two head, and £7- for the others. Never offered to sell them at '£6" 10s. : Witness proposed to have the'cattle, in -partnership, to "divide the cost of; grazing, and'go part profit and loss. Witness refused, sayingit would bea dishonest transaction. C n the follovfing Tuesday witness told-the : plaintiff that hejliad sold.the cattle, and that if lie had allowed kim"(plaintiff), to have them he would be cheating the owner out of £11, as Mr. Dunnet had never seen-tlie cattle, and knew; nothing of their value.

Tiii? was the plaintiff's case. • - . . : George .Dunnet, examined by Mr. Gillies, deposed that, the cattle were sold in _witness's liouse ; thought it was on the Tuesday. Plaintiff came : to settle on a partnership account between plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff- said there ■were four other head of. cattle, three of_ which had been", offered him at £6 10s. Plaintiff said he considered £5 103 was a fair value of three and. £1 10s for the other, taking them on partnership terms. Three of the four had been offered at Newmarket, at £6 10s ; witness was in the habit of occasionally selling cattle without seeing.them in order to close a shipment. Robert John Hunter also gave evidence for the. defendant Hunter.

This was the whole case. Counsel on both, sides haying briefly addressed the Court, His Honor said there could not be a doubt that a partnership account existed i a the first instance in reference to the first lot of cattle, but with regard to the other portion the evidence is somewhat contradictory. The statement made by the plaintiff would make it appear that the partnership was abrogated, and Mr. Dunnetdid noi attempt to contradict that portion of the evidence. Judgment would be for plaintiff, for the. amount for which the cattle had been sold by Mr. Hunter for £29. Mr. Macdonald inquired whether judgment would be against one or both defendants. His Honor said the judgment would be against both. The costs in the case amounted to £10 12s. FUGATE V. SMITH. This case was adjourned until Monday nest. The Court adjourned until Monday morning.