SUPREME COURT—CIVIL BUSINESS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 285, 18 November 1862, Page 5

SUPREME COURT—CIVIL BUSINESS.

Monday, 17th Novkmbek. (Before His Honor, Mr Jiutice Q esson.) Mr .1 v tee Qresson took his seat at lea o'c'ock. Cotte.n A.s'u ANoniEit v. I\q<v#, - iM r Gi''ies or tliir p aU.flfe; Mr Sou.h for the d fchdant. Ver■iict. by consent, L 39 ils.

M?Sh i iV'uimfT.-- MrGillte« for the plaintiff ?W~ ' th« <'elfndant said th-.case wasnot .c.cn■ ed .. n a< y fvv o, us g o,n i. The defendant (iluui) had ever been deliveied; but a* Air Gi.li. s li fc d ,i-oduet-<, a receipt, he (Mr Nmth) had recu, mended iw client to const-lit to a veraict iox L 77 10s Verdict accordingly.

Fisputep Sale of Hams. Mekdoza v Colwiak. Air (iiliits for the plaintift. Isaac Menduza\- Mr Smith for the dtfendant, J.'ino Cqlinirtij. The plaint fffcurd upon an account stated, the only disputed it. m in which wa* L3O 17s. M. for a ti, rce of h } ;ms. weighing ?AV lbs., at Is. o£d. per Ib, which v was ahesed the defendant bought unconditionally, at a month s credit. The defendant paid LlO Is. into v,ourt, and pleaiU-d Le was never further iadebt din respect to the barns.

ihe piainiiff's case was that the de rendant bonsht tne rerw without anything like a guarantee or warra ty; t at he was told to examine a d .*c;tisfy himirit; and that he to-«k out mt re tli-tn halt a* dozen hams, luost «,f which he te ted with a s-kewer, and one of wln/h he had cut open. It was not pretended 'hat tlnr ham* were first-ch:s j fo^ such, at the time wen- very scarce, and we-e w rth from Is. 61. to Is Bd. per 1b Th« pi intiff adruittel that he re-fused-to take back the h.iius ; and that he had received a notice f/om the defendant, that "the hams pur. chased from y.: U as -ound hams are quite unsound, and wholly uiifit for h man f( oil." Air South opened the defendant's casn, by staling that scaicely sny of ihe hams w<rre e'jual t<» olie which was p-aced on the top of the tierce, and to which the pJaiiiiiii pointed, saying that they Wore -'all as good

Mr Oillies objected that this was setting un a sale hy tamyue, and that, under the pleadinra 'such a course wns not cpt-n to the defendant. By payment Ji^to Court, the deCendanfc admitted the sale and d»>hvuy according to the contract tet up in the declaia-

Hf^?? UtlliTf Y™h a? d aftV ra l^g discussion, kiln Ho-or held the objection to be v did; Air .South tiieu quoted "Taylor on Kvid nee," and contended tl-at he was at liberty, and should be able to prove that, ahl.outrh there was no sale by sample' thHca-e came within the cxc. ption slated by Taylor' and tliat the defendant was not liable, became he was h-m-s 1 a I)l>Oper °PP°rtunity of tes'i«g the 'Ihe Judge snid he was decidedly opposed to Mr South ,s view, ,nd if Mr Gilli.-s was itadvto st-.ke Ins c^e upon the point, lie (the JudfTe), would rue that .such a defence was precluded by thy p!ea«hriKS. J

Mr Gillies said ho was quite ready to risk a new trial upon the point; and the"Judge ruled aa stated.

Mr South fiirthr-r contended that under his plea that thr defi-i'dant was never indebted, as to the ham*, beyond theLlO Is. he wasentitled to go intoallthecircuinstanceaattending the sa'e.

riir: Jutffce said he would take a note of both obj.'ctio s, it Mr South would hand it in; iti\Ci he should l>evtry \vi! li>io- to grant a new trial, if. upon furlk-r cons-id.-raiion, Mr youth thought he could cojvince him he was in the wrong. Mr South hamied in an objection : and the Jud't-e then directed the jury to find in the words of the is ue, that the "defendant was further indebted to the plaintiff" in ihesuin of L2O 10-i 10.1. Caspfh v. Hubert—Mr (-Jilliesfor the plaintiff Fair] thnt this case liad been withdrawn. Bkown v. Sterling.—Verdict, by consent, for LlO Is 3d.

Macilwain v. Norton.-Mr Gillies asked that tlrs cat-e, although in oi'der, should be postponed til' tlie next morninp. The plaintiff's witness- s were not ready, for it could not have b< en anticipated that so ma>>y cases would be so Foon disposed of. The Jud^i* thought inn applicaticn was reasonnble. It was°a cruelly to get through four or five eases before one o clock

Cunningham v. Thomas, and Axother. Mv Giliies n\\{\ thai this ra>e aiso had been settled. As it appeared that there was no ease ready, the Court, slioitly before one o'< lock, ajuurned to ten o'clock th.s (luesdayl morning.