LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIV, Issue 8066, 6 October 1887, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Cmii Sittings. Wednesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Ward.] Geo. Rhodes v. John Kbkb.—This action, to have an agreement declared void, wag continued to-day. Mr. Theo. Cooper (instructed by Messrs. Thome and Kigoy) was for the plaintiff, and Mr. Edwin Hesketh for the deleuce. The action oomtrenced on Thursday last. It will be reoollected that the plaintiff purchased the patent right* for Hooker's incandescent light for the province of Auckland, payiog £100 down and giving a promissory note for £400. The plaintiff now claimed' that the agreement became void on the ground that the purohase was made in consequence of misrepresentations. Mr. Hesketh resumed the examination-in-chief of Mr. Howorth, solicitor to patent &«ent, who had acted as agent for Mr. Kerr in the sale to Mr. Rhodes, ami he was subjected to a searching crossexamination by Mr. Cooper. Mr. Rhodes, the plaintiff in the action, was recalled, and the evidance of Mr. Cameron and Mr. Chatfield taken at..Wellington was read. The evidence of Mr Edwards, also taken at Wellington, was submitted, but Mr. Cooper objected to its being received. It was submuted to the Court, and His Honor decided that it was not admissible, that it was only hearsay evidence. This was all the evidence offered for the defence. After the midday adjournment Mr. Hesketh addressed the jury, commencing at 25 minutes past two o'clock. His address, a most exhaustive one, lusted until 25 minutes to six o'clock. The Court' then adjourned until a quarter to seven o'clock, and when it again resumed, Mr. Cooper commenced his address to the jury, He concluded at twenty-five minute* to nixie o'clock. His Honor then summed up, referriag to the salient point* of the evidence, and went through the issues before the jury. There were 19 issues prepared for submission to the jury, but a number of those were agreed upon and answers in the affirmative admitted without the finding of the jury. The following were the issues submitted by His Honor to tho jury and their answers :— 1. Did Wm. Hooker in the course of the negotiations with the plaintiff make to the plaintiff any of the representations following, and if so which : (a) That the consumption of the gas was lof oil gas to 9of air. Yen. (b) That 3 gallons of oil would make 10,000 feet of mixed gas. Yes. (c) That the consumption of suoh mixed or patent (gas was only 1-lOth greater than that of coal gas. Yes, (d) That the patent incandescent burners were not affected or injured by use ; that after six months personal use by himself they were as good as ever, and that in case of renewal becoming necessary the old metal (platinum) would be worth half the cost of renewing Yes. (e) That in his own house he bad for six months used six of the patent incandescent burners with oil gas, at a cost of 16s for such—Yes. 2. Ware the said representations, or any of them, and if so, which of th?m true ?None. 3. Were the said representations made by the said William Hooker as the authorised agent of the defendant—Yes. 4. Did Henry Howorth make any of the foregoing representations to the plaintiff, and if so, wmcb ? —Yes, A, B, and C. 5. Was the said Henry Howortu, at the time of the making of the said representations by the said William Hooker, present and assenting thereto Yes. 6. Dirt the plaintiff, relying upon the said representations, enter into the agreement set forth in the first paragraph of the statement of claim Yes. 12. Did plaintiff know the said representations to be false when he made the said applications for the renewal of the promissory note, or either of them?— No. 13. Before making the said applications, had he full means and opportunity to ascertain whether said representations were true or false?— Yes. 14. Did the plaintiff then, knowing that the said representations were false, intend by the said application and by making the agreement referred to in the 16th issue, waive the grievances alleged in the statement of claim, and ratify and confirm the said contract of sale with the defendant? No. 15. What damages is the plaintiff entitled to recover in respect of the matters stated in paragraph 12 of the statement of claim ? £39 16a 3i. IS. In what manner has the said agreement been acted upon by the parties thereto ? Answer (consented to) : By Kelly lighting up his own house and travelling for three weeks with the said apparatus, and endeavouring to obtain orders for said light; and by purchasing some 1 of said burners from plaintiff; and by Craig lighting up his own house, and purchasing burners therefor from plaintiff up to the present time, but no sales have been made by either. 19. When wight the plaintiff, by the exercise of reasonable diligence,have ascertained whether the said representations were true or false ? —by the 30th March, The jury retired at nine o'clock, and after two hours' deliberation, returned to Court with their findings. Mr, Cooper theu moved upon the findings that as there was only one point against the plaintiff, that judgment should be given for the plaintiff, reserving leave to Mr. Hesketh to move for arrest of judgment or to enter on any other judgment. tie moved that judgment be given for £500 aud the amount found by the jury and lor costs. He had no objection to execution being stayed. Mr. Hesketh said he wished to reserve the right to apply for a new trial, and Mr. Cooper said he could not objeot to that. Mr. Cooper olaimed costs on the highest scale, and that costs for five extra days be allowed. Judgment was then Kiveu for plaintiff that agreement be declared void aud ordered to be cancelled, the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the sum of £500, and the defendant to pay to plaintiff the luriher sum of £39 16b 3d damages with costs on the highest scale and counsel's costs for five extra days at 15 guineas per day. Leave being granted to defendant to move in terms of sub section 3 of rule 280

The Court rose at half past eleven o'clock. POLICE COURT.— Wednesday. [Before R. 0. S. B*ddaley, Eaj., K.M ] Drunkenness. —John Wilson and Elizabeth Hatfield were each fined 20s and costs for being drunk, and Clara Alcook, for a similar offence, was ordered to pay 5s and costs. No Visible Lawfoi. Means. — Charles Wilkinson, alias Kobinßon, was charged with having no lawful visible means of support, and of maliciously damaging a fanlight to the extent of 20s, the property of Dr. Hooper, by throwing stones at it. He pleaded not guilty to both charges. Constable Finnerty deposed that ho arrested the prisoner on the 3rd mat. on a charge of throwing stones and breaking windows in Hobaoii'«t,reet. Prisoner stated to him that he had not been doing anything since he had come from Wellington. tie had been convicted there for larceny, and had been also found guilty of destroying fish on Thursday last. Arthur Hooper deposed that on Saturday night last he heard a bang at the front door at about nine o'clock. Shortly after a second crash occurred, and witness went out, but saw nothing. He stayed inside the door, and then saw aooused at the gate. Witness ran out and chased prisoner, who ran up Hobson-utreet, and overtook him. On Sunday night two stones were thrown at the houno. On Tuesday night witness was standing at the side gate when be saw accused stoop and pick up a stone. He, however, saw witness and dropped the stone, and walked away. Stanley Diddams, who was standing with last witness, gave corroborative evidence. Prisoner strongly denied the oharge of vagrancy, stating that he had a good trade, and also an annuity of £26 per annnin. His Worship characterised the prisoner's oonduot as "shameful and abominable, !> and told him he was a " thorough-paced blackguard." He was seat to gaol for three months ou the oharge of vagrancy and two months for the mahoious damage to property, the sentences to run consecutively.