AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLIV, Issue 13523, 22 August 1907, Page 7

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT

MASSICK V. JONES. PLAINTIFF AWARDED £2 DAM ACES. The bearing of the action brought by William Isaac Massick, jeweller, agains-t Sydney . Lev is Jones, another jeweller, claiming £423 9s 9d for alleged wrongful seizure of goods and breach of agreement, was concluded at the Supreme Court yesterday before Mr. Justice Deniston. Mr. W. J. Napier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. J. R. Reed for the defendant. Counsel addressed the jury. His Honor, in summing up, ruled that the defendant had not shown sufficient justification for terminating the agreement. It was, however, for the jury to determine the question of damages, and he put the following isues to them to answer:(l) Did the defendant refuse to carry out his agreement to supply stock to the plaintiff? (2) If so, what damages (if any) was the plaintiff entitled to on this account) (3) What damages was the plaintiff entitled to for the wrongful termination of the agreement 7 (4) Did the defendant wrongfully deprive the plaintiff of the goods mentioned in the statement of claim, or any of them'' (5) If so, what damages was the plaintiff entitled to? The jury retired at 2.15 p.m., and returned an hour later, answering questions 1 and 4 in the negative and awarding £2 damages for wrongful termination of the agreement.

His Honor observed that the plaintiff had recovered 40s for an action which he might have brought in the Magistrate's Court. With regard to the question of costs, it seemed to him that the defendant was entitled to full Supreme Court costs on the issues on which he had succeeded, while the plaintiff was only entitled to Magistrate's Court costs on the amount he had recovered.

The question of costs was reserved for argument. !he Court adjourned until 10.30 this morning.