THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 956, 27 June 1890, Page 21

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. Last Friday, being the anniversary of the ncoession of Queen Victoria, the Supreme Court did not sit. The libel action, Roberts v. Blundell, has, we believe, been withdrawn. The case of J. H. Achesou, commercial traveller, v. Stewart and Co., eawmillers, a claim of £SOO for libol, which was to have been heard on Tuesday, has been satisfactorily settled. The administration suit of Maule v. Archer was again before the Supreme Court on Saturday; when Mr Jellicoe, who appeared for the-plaintiff, informed the Chief Justice that the estate had been realised and the accounts taken. Counsel further stated that the case was before the Court on the 10th February last, when his Honor granted a decree for the administration and accounts. Mr Jellicoe then asked that a decree should be made for the payment of costs out of the estate and the division of the surplus between each of the beneficiaries in the -.title. His Honor granted the decree, and the Court was adjourned until next morning. In the Supreme Court on Saturday Mr Jellicoe referred to the Rangitikei Fibre Company in liquidation, and moved that certain gentlemen associated with the Company be publicly examined. His Honor the Chief Justice intimated that he thought it would be necessary first oE all to file an affidavit. After argument Mr Jellicoe agreed to' this course, and his Honor fixed the 17th of next month as the day for the examination. Monday, June 23. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice and a special jury.) BRYANT V. EKETAHUNA ROAD BOARD. Robert Bryant, the plaintiff in this action is a contractor in the Wairarapa, whoinstit.uted proceedings to recover L 250 as the value of plant and material used in the construction of a bridge over the Makokahi River, under contract from the Eketaliuna Road Board, for L 450, and also for L 505 as damages for alleged negligence on the part of the Board. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a special jury : —Messrs J. D. Stuart (foreman), James Jack, J. D. Wrigglesworth, J. Sloan, A. E. Rowden, J. H. Pickering, A. M. Cooper, W. Ferguson, J. Plimmer, T. G. Graham, J. A. Plimmer, and W. F. Barraud. Mr Morison appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Gully for the defendant. In opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr Morison said that the action was brought for the recovery of the value of a quantity of material and plant seized by the defendants and used by them, and also to claim damages owing to the negligence of the Board’s engineer causing the bridge to collapse. After the bridge fell, several negotiations took place between the plaintiff and the Board, after which the Board seized the plant and converted it to their own use. The bridge, Mr Morison contended, collapsed before the stipulated strain was put on it, which caused, amongst other things, the breaking of a man’s leg. For the defence Mr Gully contended that the bridge collapsed through the mismanagement of the contractor. In cross-examination, plaintiff said that the engineer frequently expressed himself as being satisfied with work, in the consequence of which several progress payments were made. Remembered receiving a letter on the 26th of June last from the engineer to the effect that a particular portion of the work was not properly constructed. The defects complained of were then rectified, when an additional payment was made. Considered that the work of the bridge was accurately carried out. John McLeod, carpenter, who was present at the building of the scaffolding, said that the collapse was not due to any

defects in the timber. On one occasion he took the engineer under the scaffold and asked him if it was strong enough, and the engineer answered in the affirmative. The scaffold was built strictly in accordance with the engineer’s plans. H p. Higginson, engineer, stated that he had examined the plans of the scaffold of the bridge in question, and in his opinion the structure was not strong enough. Both ends of the bridge were not capable of carrying more than double the breakage strain, whereas in witness’ opinion they should have been strong' enough to carry at least six times that strain. Many of the bolts or fastenings he considered were top small. Cross-examined by Mr Gully : The scaffolding might have been strong enough to bear ono truss instead of two, but for this the bridge would have to be constructed accordingly. Mr Gully, for the defence, contended that no evidence had been given to show that the Board was responsible, and further, that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the collapse of the bridge was owing to any act of the Board, and under these contentions counsel asked for a nonsuit. Mr Morison thought a prima facie case to go before the jury had been made out. Counsel had not concluded their argument at 6 o’clock, when the Court adjourned to the following morning. Tuesday, June 24. On the Court resuming this morning Mr Gully continued his argument on a nonsuit point raised by him on Monday. Mr Morison having replied, his Honor considered there was no evidence to. go to a jury of a contract between the plaintiff aud the Board as regards the scaffolding. Mr Morison then raised the question of conversion of tools and plant, maintaining that the no;ice of seizure was irregular, and eventually, after considerable argument, it "was decided to allow the whole question to go to the jury as to whether there had been negligence ou the part of the Board’s engineer; and if so, whether the Board was responsible for the act of their officer in regard to the scaffolding. The following evidence was then given : Joseph Dawson, a contractor, residing in the Wairarapa, stated that, he completed the building of the bridge which collapsed and fell inio the Makahahi rivert It was usual for contractors to erect their scaffolding from their own designs. John King, civil engineer, said he was not a permanent officer in the employment of the Eketahuna Road Board, but occasionally did work for them. Witness drew the plans for the bridge in question. At the.request of plaintiff, witness drew a plan of the scaffolding. The Board had nothing whatever to do with if. After the bridge collapsed plaintiff old witness that he had no means and could proceed with the work no further.' Was never asked by the plaintiff to inspect tie scaffo ding. Wa3 considerably surprised to see t.he way in which plaintiff had erected the scaffold. Plaintiff paid witness for preparing the plan of the scaffold. Witness allowed L 65 for the scaffolding, but as Mr Bryant built it he did nbt think it would have cost more than Ll 5 or L 20., He thought the scaffolding was badly built the first time he saw it. After some further evidence counsel addressed the jury, who after au hour’s deliberation returned a verdict for the defendant, costs being allowed on the highest scale. The Court adjourned at 7.30 pm till the following morning.

Wednesday, J une 25. At the Supreme Court on Wednesday, before his Honor tlie Chief Justice and a special jury, the hearing was begun of a case which R. A. Butcher, of Featherston journalist, sought to recover LIOOO from Mr Joseph PaytoUj proprietor of the Wairarapa Daily, a Maaterton paper, for libel. Mr Jellicoe was for the plaintiff, and Mr Gully for defendant. The following gentlemen were sworn in as a special jury :—A. Young (foreman), H. Blundell, B. T. Goring, G. G. Mason, T. W. Young, F. de J. Clere, J. Jack, A. J. McTavish, W. J. Nathan, A. McLeod, H. R. Glegg and W. Halse. The allegations upon which the plaintiff based his claim were that in November last he was employed as Eketahuna manager of the Pahiatua Mail, owned by Messrs Smith and Hogg, and that he 1 »st that position in consequence of a paragraph published in the Daily. On the Bth of November the Daily published a paragraph in which it expressed curiosity to “solve the profound and perplexing mysteries of the Smith and Hogg-cum-Butcher combination journal.” On the 10th of November it denied an assertion made by Mr Butcher that he had lost his situation because of “ scurrilous particulars published about him in the Daily,” and stated that they had “ ample evidence ” to prove that that assertion was untrue, and to show, if Mr Butcher wished it, the reason which induced Smith and Hogg to dispense with his services. Mr Butcher then wrote asking them to publish the evidence, aud they replied by saying that he was “ suspected of being a and a ,” and that the Daily paragraph was simply used a 3 a reason for getting rid of him. In consequence of the Daily’s paragraph, the defendant said, he lost his situation. The defendant admitted publication, but pleaded that the matters referred to were of bonsl fide public interest, and that the publication was not

done with any sinister motive. He denied that the plaintiff had lost his situation through what was published in the Daily. The plaintiff was examined at length, stating that the paragraph in question had been the means of preventing him getting employment. Messrs Hogg and Smith, proprietors of the Mas ter ton Star, gave evidence as to seeing the paragraph, and giving it as their opinion that the article in question was calculated to damage the plaintiff. Joseph Payton, the defendant and proprietor of the Wairarapa Daily, admitted in his. evidence the publication of the paragraph,-, but pleaded that it was not written with any malicious intent. Witness did not consider that the article prevented the plaintiff from obtaining other employment. The defendant was subjected to a long cross-examination by Mr Jellicoe, and at 6.30 the Court adjourned till the following morning. (PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Dunedin, June 19. The libel case Broad v. Tapper, in which £2OO damages were claimed, occupied the Supreme Court to-day. The libel consisted of the writing on a board which formed a portion of the shutters of Tapper and Co.’s window of the words “Broad, Invercargill spy aud late post office thief.” The case of the plaintiff, who had been at tho post-office at Invercargill, and was transferred to Dunedin, was based on the similarity of the handwriting on the board to the defendant’s, who had been employed for some time by A. Tapper and Co., but left after a dispute. Mr Justice Williams gaze a verdict for the plaintiff, giving £SO damages. Auckland, June 22. The case of Stokes, of Christchurch, v. McCaul, an action for an injunction to prevent the defendant from making a certain class of nail, for which Stokes and Robb had taken ont a patent, was concluded at the Supreme Court on Saturday. The following issues were laid before the jury :—lst. Does the specification sufficiently describe the invention for which the plaintiff and Robb applied for letters-patent and the manner in which the same is to be performed ? 2ud. What was the invention alleged ? 3rd. Were the plaintiff and Robb the first aud true inventors of such alleged invention ? 4th. Has the defendant infringed the letters patent granted to the plaintiff and Robb ? The jury returned the following answers ; Ist, yes ; 2nd, a cup-headed self-adjusting tinned wire nail ; 3rd and 4th, no. June 25. Mr Justice Conolly delivered judgment to-day in the case of the National Bank v. Grace, a claim for debt and interest. He had reserved judgment to consider (1) Has the bank the right to charge interest on a debit at one branch while there was a credit to the account at another ? and (2) Wa3 it incumbent on the bank to combine the accounts at the time of taking action ? Judgment on the first question was in the affirmative, and on the second in the negative. Tibiaru, June 24. At the -Supreme Court to-day, Davey, charged with forgery, with which Sanderson was connected, was found not guilty. James Sanderson was sentenced to twelve months’ hard labour on four charges of forgery. Dennis Wright, charged with the laroeDy of a garden hose at Oamaru, was acquitted. Two criminal cases are yet to be heard. Invercargill, June 24. At the Supreme Court C. Milligan, charged with an aggravated assault on Gorman, his father-in-law, was convicted of a common assault and sentenced to a month’s hard labour. Two men from the lake distriot, committed on a charge of stealing dynamite, arrived in custody tonight, and the case will laid before the grand jury to-morrow. There will be a difficulty about the exhibits, as the Railway Department declined to convey the stolen explosive (451 b weight) without going through the usual routine.