SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4029, 16 January 1875, Page 5 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Thursday, Jan-hart 14th.

■Before His Honour Sir Justice Chapman and a Special Jury.)

A. R. HAY V, IIOQQ AND IWTTOK ASP So3|Kl(V£l(fc,

In this action the plaintiff prayed—(l.) That a certain receipt, dated 12th January, 1874, might be declared by decree of Court to amount at most to a security for tho due retirement of four bills of exchange therein mentioned. (2.) That upon the duo payment of what niijfht be adjudged, or found to he due, in respect of the first bi.l of exchange in the receipt mentioned, and the delivery up to Hofg and Hutton of the three other bills, the said receipt might be cancelled and destroyed. (3.) That Hogg and Hutton might he required, at their own cost and charges, to extjcuie and register a release of the encumbrances registered against the title to the land mentioned in t]io declaration. (4) That Hogg and Hutton might be decreed to hear and pay plaintiff's costs of suit, together with such other costs as might be awarded to the defendant Hetidry Someivell, by reason of his having been made a party to this suit. And (5) That plaintiff might havesuvh further or other relief as to the Court might seem fit.

MrMaeassey, with him Mr Stout, appeared for plaintiff ; Mr Barton, with him Mr Stewart, for defendants, Hojfif and Hutton.

When the Court resumed at 10 o'cloelc, Mr Barton proceeded to address the Jury for the defendants, and was followed by llr Maccassey on behalf of the plaintiff.

His Honour having summed up, tho Jury retired shortly aftev 3 o'clock, and after an absence of over five hours, returned u'jtjj the following answers to the various issues submitted to them ;—

1. Was it the real object, meaning, and intent of the plaintiff and the defendants, James Hogg anil James Hutton, in the transaction or arrangement of the 12th day of January, 1574, in tho declaration mentioned, that the receipt of that date should operate and be a security merely for the due retirement of the four bilk of exchange mentioned in it ?—Answer : The receipt was given to receive payment by Hay of the four acceptances and as a conditional Balo of three years' rent.

2. Was the amount of the first bill of exchange duly tend-red by the plaintiff, with interest, to the said James Hogg and James Hutton after it had been retired by thepi; and did the said James Hng<; and Jamoa Hutton refuse to rgceivo the amount so tendared?—Aii6wer: Yea

3. Did the said J. Hogg and J. Hutton asslipi as their reason for refusing to receive the amount so tendered, that they were entitled to ret ■tin the leasehold premises held by them for a term of three years in consequence of the default committed by the plaintiff in omitting to retire the first of the said four bills'!— Answer: Yes.

4. Did the defriitlantg, J. Hogg and J. Hutton, waive and dispense with the tender of the three bills of exchange mentioned in the second plea by intimattnjj and notifying to the pontiff that they would not receive £he siimo even jf and when tendered ?— Answer: There is no evidence to enable the jury to decide.

5. Was it intended between the pm tics to the agreement of 12th January, 1874, that the defendants, Hojrg and Huttoii, should occupy the premises therein mentioned for a term of three years from the Ist diy of March, 1874? Answer: The intention of the parties was that Hogg and Hutten should have a five years' lease from Ist January, 1875, as expressed in Hay's letter tp GUijes and Street o{ 24tl| January, 1574.

6. Was the plaintiff the roai ownai- uf tlio prpnijses in the o cupation of Hogg and Button'? Answer s There is no evidence to enable the Jury to decide. 7. If the plaintiff is not the owner, did he enter into the agreement and do the matter and tiling in the deelantfjon alleged^ an lh.e agent of Hcudry Somervell? Answer t Yes,

8. Was the transaction ay arrpnjrenient pf tho 12th January, 1574, entered into mere|y for tjjb personal convenience and acconnnod.itioii of fhe plaintiff '• Answer : The bills were given for tho accommodation Of the plaintiff.

flip Court t)ign adjourned, till 10 a.m. next day Friday).