SUPREME COURT—CIVIL BUSINESS.

Otago Witness, Issue 571, 8 November 1862, Page 5

SUPREME COURT— CIVIL BUSINESS.

Thursday, Nov. 6. (Before his Honor, Mr. Justice Gresson.)

DISPUTE ON A LAND SALE,

Bcrcni'R v. Ciialmbks. — (Special J\mj.)—^,lv Joi.nson for the pi untiff ; Mr Cook for the defendant. Th" plaintiff souirht to recover 1300 wbich he bad paid to the defendant, and compensation forfeiture to give abstract of tit'e to Section 1 ' 4 ai.d 5. at the Halfwny I3u-h comprising 21 acres. On the 3rd June, tbe plaintiff, through his agents, Messrs Gilliej and Street, made an agn oment to purchase the land from the defendant for 18'1O— L300 to be paid witliin a week r.n-i the remain-lcr on th<; defendant giving ahstr.ict of title. The L3OO was paid aoconlfnglv ; but all efforts to induce the defendant to give titl.s having fai!e>l, proceedings weie commenced on the 20th August. Air Johnson opened the pleaiin^s fully, and stated the case. He added that th>* plaintiiF simply vvant-d to have the ngTfcmeut canied out; and" he (Mr Johnson) now repeated ihe offer marie ?o Mr Cook on the prevoas day, to take a vprdict by consent for any sum over «nd above the L3OO paid, which mitrht be coiibide'ul suiiicient to act as a penalty upon the defendant to complete the agreement. Mr Gink iisiite! that, despite certain allegations in the pleadings there was nothing that eouid be sent to the jury but the question of damages. There ■wrte and hud been difficulties consequent upon circurabtances attending the death of ttse re endant's father, and the arrangements for dowiy to the widow ; but as toon as these could be got o%'er, which might i.ow be in a t^.v days, he, acting for the defendant, would give title. It bavins? been left to his Hcnor to fix a su>n, the foil, wing finding w;i« agreed to :—'' "Wfttiet by cov6ent for 1.8 0, Fuijcct to be red\iced F»ls and'cosls, on condition of the title being made out to the safs faction of Mr Johnson, within three months from thLUate; possession to be given within a we< k, suoii pos-c-iiui to h" without piejudjee to the right of the pfms.tiif to in>Lst that a valid title has not been made out."

CLAIM FOR CUTTING FLAX.

Glenn v Sows.— {Special Jury.)— ' Sir Baiton fortheplmntiff, Ricliani (iler.u; aDd MrT.B. Gillks for tne d> fonuaut, John Jonc3.

The action \\asto recover LGO -L4S, for cutting 32 acr&j of flax, and LI I for wrongful dismissal Ihe dct"n<!ant p!o»Jet a.~..t off tv ti.e amount of L 7 lid, which -was admitted ; and having paid Lll into Court, he pleaded that be was not further indebted.

r t he story of the plaintiti' (corroboiated by a witness) wa- that f.n the 4th July, ho verbally agraed with the defmiant r.t bis miil, at vVaikouaiti, to cut forty acres of fltx, atGO,]ier ficie. \Ylnn be had tut 32 acres, within limits poiuted out by the defendant, he and the man emploj>d hy him vrere ordered to stop wo k, and sub equently '.he defendant's manager gave him an order fin- pivme'tfor twehe acres, at 30s. and twenty acres at 12s 6d. He refused to accept, and aft «r awhile procee. ings wee commenced The account given by rhe defendant, liis son Alfred, and Al»cgrpg r, the defendant's manager, was that beciiise the two iasn, who appeared equally interested, pieced very mij.jh for a job, they were told that they niiglir v.xrk at flax cutting on some ground near the Hawkesbury Buali. Thf plaintiff e^ 'entiy knew no hing- <,f the v Jue of the work, as he at fii st thcught L 5 an itcre would be a fair price ; but LI lOs was agreed to, the defendant explaining that the fhx was very thick, that there was plenty of tus=acks of gr.t>s, and that all must be out, piled, and burned. Tbe di feudant also told them that he h;id never paid more than 30a. The ground on which they wei« to <..ork, near Hawksbury Bush Hou->e, was specially pointed out, and tney were toil, not tha' they were to cut forty acre 3. but thst, if t ! iey thoughb it paid the n, the\ might cut up to a ceitiin trade. It being afterwards found that the men had cios-ed the sprcifi. d boundary, and got upon land which was comparatively very light in flax, they werctold to go upon the heavier land, and as they refused, they we re ordeied lo cease work Upon measurement the overseer found that twelve acres within the specified bounds had been badly cleared, and that twenty acres of tbe lighter flax had albo been cleaied. The defendant was ieady to pay 30s an acre for tbe twelve acres, and was willing to give 12^s Gd for each of thu twenty ar-res, that being the price he had l>efo:e paid for siinilai land ; but as, during one of the interviews on the subject, the men were impertim nt, and refused to take the 12s 6.1, tbe defendant toid them that he would only nay for the twelve acres wbich b.td Le.en done according to directions. The sum paid into couit, nnd the amount of the set off, represented the value of the work in the twelve aci es.

Aft< r consulting for more than an hour, the jury returned a verdict fur the plaintiff— damages, L 7 tin fld'lition to the LI I paid into court). The Foreman also lea I the following — '• In giving this verdict, tbe jury Vali to give a further exprcsioa of opinion. They n-giet that this rnse should have been brought into court, ns it appears to them exceedingly unfair that the costs should fall upon the defendant, as they con'-ider the offer made by the defendant tb the plaintiff a fair one." Th e'Jourt rose at half-past five o'clock.