Law Intelligence.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 376, 26 April 1879, Page 11

Law Intelligence.

SUPREME COURT.

At the nisi twins sittings of the SupremeCourt, on If riday, his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond'and a common jury were occupied with the trial of the cause Travers and another v. Had field. Mr. Travers appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs, and Mr. Lewis for the defendant. The plantiffs, Messrs. W. T. L. Travers and R J Duncan, are trustees in the estate of the late Mr. James Gilligan ; and the defendant is a resident of Christchurch. Ihe action is brought by the trustees to compel • the defendant to complete a contract for the purchase of 818 acres of land at the Tawera, Wairarapa, which the late Mr. Gilligan, some time prior to his death, agreed to sell to the defendant for the sum of £13,000, £SOOO of which was to be cash down, and the balance to remain on mortgage. This agreement was reduced to writing, but it is alleged in the declaration that when the time arrived for the completion of the contract, the defendant declined to perform his part of it. The objection raised by the defendant against the completion was that the abstract of title was not given at the time specified in the written agreement. The point which the jury had to decide was the date upon which the title was handed over. They found that it was not delivered on the date mentioned in the agreement ; and the next proceedings will take place before the Judge in banco, when the legal points involved in the case will come on for argument.

HOUGHTON AND OTHERS V. MOODY AND OTHERS.

This was an action brought by Mary Anne Houghton and James Harris against Charles Moody and John Compton for the recovery of certain land and premises in Wiilis-street on account of breach of contract, Mr. Travers appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. Ollivier for the defendant Compton. Mr. Travers in his opening remarks stated that the land was leased by the plaintiffs to Mr. Moody for a term of years, and that Mr. Moody had sublet the said premises to Mr. Compton. By the lease it was agreed that the premises should be insured in the joint names of Mrs. Houghton and Mr. Moody, but Mr. Compton insured the premises in his own and Mrs. Houghton’s name, and had thereby committed a breach of the covenant to insure, and the plaintiffs were therefore entitled to recover possession of the said land and premises. Compton at a later date had the insurance policy altered in accordance with the terms of the conveyance, but this reinsurance was held to be invalid by plaintiffs’ counsel. After evidence had been taken in support of the plaintiffs’ case, the Court adjourned. At the Supreme Court on Saturday the adjourned case of Houghton aud others v. Moody and others was continued. Mr. Ollivier, on opening the case for the defendants, applied for a nonsuit on two technical grounds, and at a later period of the trial on the ground of misdirection of the jury. Mr. Justice Richmond stated that he was not prepared to grant a nonsuit without being quite clear on the points raised, and it was arranged that they should be argued in banco. After counsel on both sides had addressed the . jury, bis Honor summed up. There were a number of issues submitted to the jury ; they returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs on Borne points and of the defendants on others. The main point—whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled to re-enter into possession of the property —cannot be settled until the points raised by Mr. Ollivier have been decided. CIVIL SITTINGS. Tuesday, April 22 (Before Mr. Justice Richmond.) RANSON V. THE TE ABO THEATRE AND PUBLIC HALL COMPANY. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a Special Jury -.—Messrs. H. Green (foreman!, H. Brittain, J. Richardson, A. Shaw, T. W. Young, R. Burrett, G. W. Dutton, G. Fisher, John Smith, B. Reeves, J. Coleridge, and M. IT. Samuel. Mr. Travers, with Mr. Bell, appeared for the plaintiff, and the Hon. Mr. Buckley, with Mr. Stafford, for the defendant. This was an action to recover £2OOO by the trustees in the bankrupt estate of John Ranson from the directors of the Te Aro Theatre Company. The plaintiff’s case rested on the three following grounds :—(1) Plaintiff alleges he is entitled to recover from the company a sum of money, being an excess in their hands upon the amount actually expended by them in the completion of the work ; (2) commission of certain building plant and material at the time of Hanson’s cessation were bis property, and converted to the company’s use by the architect, their agent ; (3) conversion of property, which had nothing to do with the contract. facts, briefly stated, were as follows :—Ranson contracted to build the Imperial Opera House for a certain sum, but before the buildiDg was completed he became bankrupt. The defendants then finished the

building, charging lianson’s estate with the cost. The plaintiffs alleged that the cost was far greater than it ought to have been, and that if Ranson had been allowed to complete his contract the building would have been erected for far less money. They therefore considered that they were entitled to recover the £2OOO, which they alleged _ was overexpended on the building. Plaintiff also contended that defendants had converted to their own use certain building plant, See. Mr. Travers having replied for the defendants at a late hour the jury returned a verdict on the main issues of the case, and awarded a sum of £3O to the plaintiff.

Thursday, April 24. (Before his Honor the Ghicf Justice.) The case of the Wellington Athemeum v. Mace and Arkell came on at 10 o'clock tliis morning at the Supreme Court before liis Honor "the Chief Justice and a special jury of twelve.

Mr. Conolly, with him Mr. Edwards*, appeared for the plaintiffs, and j\lr. Travers for the defendants.

The action was for recovery of £SOO under a bond given by Messrs. Mace and Arkell for the due performance of a contract entered into in November, 1870, by Mr. .James Ranson, builder, to erect the Athemeum Institute for £0359 by the 15th August, 1877. The building was not completed on the above date, and Ranson continued to carry on the work till the 18th September, 1877, when he ceased to have anything to do with the building, and shortly afterwards became bankrupt. The work was continued by the plaintiffs, and was finally completed on the 13th November, 1877. at an expenditure, as stated, of £303 3s. lid. beyond the contract price. Ranson, under the condition of the contract, made himself liable to a penalty of £5 per day for every day the work should extend beyond the time specified for completion. The defence was that Ranson had partly executed extra work, and that under terms of the contract he became entitle 1 to an extension of time, and that the time which reasonably ought to have been allowed had not expired when lie became bankrupt. And for further defence that there was enough of Ranson’s money left in the hands of the plaintiffs to complete the building. The jury retired at a quarter to five, and came in at a quarter to six with the following verdict :—That £5 a day became payable from the 15th August to the 18th September, as liquidated damages uuder the contract. That the plaintiffs had no money of Ranson’s in their hands, and on the tenth issue, “ that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover nothing, inasmuch as they had neglected to retain the percentages, amounting to £I3OO, from the progress payments made to the contractor.” The jury by this evidently intended it to be implied that they considered the conduct of the plaintiffs’ architect had been improper in certifying for large sums in excess of the amounts to which the contractor was entitled by way of progress payment, thereby inflicting a loss and hardship on the sureties, which would have been avoided had the architect done his duty properly. In obedience, however, to the direction of the Judge, the jury afterwards found on the tenth issue as follows : —On the first count, £363 3s. lid.; on the second count, £l7O ; total, £533 3s. lid., subject to questions of law ; but the plaintiffs can only recover £SOO in the whole, notwithstanding the verdict for the large sum. The Court then adjourned to 10 a.m. to-day.

DISTRICT COURT. Friday, April 18. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford.) BLACK V. J. C. IUTCHIE. This was an action to recover £99 175., for a buggy and harness supplied by the plaintiff, a coach builder, residing in Wellington, to defendant, a settler in Palmerston North. Mr. Forwood appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Stafford for the defendant. The plaint set forth was that the defendant ordered a buggy and harness, which were to be sent to him at Palmerston. After arriving there defendant refused to take delivery of them. The defence was, that the articles as sent were never ordered. Defendant admitted that he had ordered a buggy, but of a totally different description to the one sent him by plaintiff. The one sent was altogether useless to him. Plaintiff produced his books, showing the entries made when the order was given. According to the entries the buggy sent was the same as that described. Mr. Mansford gave judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs.

Notice of appeal was given by Mr. Stafford. The remainder of the eases which were set down for hearing were postponed for a fortnight.