SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 6738, 19 September 1883, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.—CIVIL SITTINGS.

Tuesday, September 18. • {Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams and a Jury of Four,) ARTHUR MOIR V. MARSHALL AND OOPELAND. Claim for £264 19a 2d, and interest, for furniture and stock-in-trade of the Tramway Terminus Hotel, Caversham.—The defendants denied the allegations contained in the plaintiff's claim, and, by way of counter claim, sought to recover the sum of £253 13a Id. Mr E. Cook appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Harvey for the defendants. In tbis case the plaintiff claimed to recover from the defendants a sum of money which he had paid to them for the purchase of the stock-in-trade, furniture, and fittiuga .of a house known as tha Tramway Terminus Hotel, at Caversham, on the ground that the defendants retook possession of the place on the 7th of June, and treated it as their own. In the statement of the defence it was denied that the firm of Marshall and Copeland had retaken possession of the premises, alleged that ' the person who was in occupation of them waß the agent of the plaintiff, and claimed to recover from the plaintiff the sum of £175 18s lOd for goods supplied, and £7714 a3d for rant due.

A number of witnesses were examined, and counsel on both sides addressed the jury. His Honor, in Bumming up, referred to the conflicting nature of the evidence, and said that the principal .point in the ease was whether Marshall and Copeland retook possession of the premises when Fox went in on the Oth June—in other words, whether Fox was put in by Marshall and Copeland in substitution for Moir, or whether he was put in by Dunne as acting, or purporting to act, on behalf of Moir. His Honor asked the jury first to consider the question whether or not the defendants re-entered and took possession of the premises on the 9th of June. The Jury, after a short consultation, found that Messrs Marshall and Copeland did re-enter and take possession of the premises. His Honor said that the jury having found that the defendants did re-enter and take possession of the premises, the plaintiff would be entitled to recover the value of the stock, which had been estimated as worth £51. The furniture and fittings had been bought by the plaintiff for the sum of £213 9s 2d, but the defendants wore not bound to repay that sum to the plaintiff. It must be taken that the defendants had rightfully determined the tenancy, because the plaintiff had not paid the rent, and had gone away. The defendants were justified in doing what the jury had found they had done, and unless the jury found that an agreement had bees made to repurchase at cost, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover that portion of his claim. Of the set-off, £112 Us was admitted to be due by tlio plaintiff, and unless there was an agreoment to repurchase the furniture, &c, the plaintiff would be found to be indebted to the defendants.

The jury again retired, and on re-entering the Court, Tha Foreman announced that they found £51 due to the plaintiff for stock, bnt that there was no agreement to repurchase the furniture and fittings, and that the defendants were entitled to credit for tho amount of £112 lls. Their verdict was therefore in favour of the defendants for £61 lln and costs (£21135). The Court rose at 6 p.m.

—China has been buying arms freely in America during tha past-few i months. She haa taken 8000 stand of arms with accoutrements and considerable quantities of small arms and fixed ammunition