The Courts.

Otago Witness, Issue 1248, 30 October 1875, Page 5

The Courts.

(Before His Honour Mr Justice Williams, and a Special Jury.) HOGG AND ANOTHER V. SOJfERVELL.

Mr Smith and Mr Denniston for the plaintiffs; Mr Macassey and Mr Stout for the defendant.

This was an action brought by James Hogg and James Hutton against Heridry Somervell.

The plaintiffs in this cr.se prayed that the Court might declare certain agreements between the defendent (by his agent, Alexander Kennie Hay) and plaintiffs, had been entered into. These alleged agreements were for the leasing, to plaintiffs, of premises in Princes street North, near the Octagon. The plaintiffs farther prayed that the defendant might be compelled specifically to perform the said agreements as far as the same were yet to be performed, and to execute to the plaintiffs a good an,d sufficient lease according to the terms of the agreements ; or, if the Court should think fit, that the damages which the plaintiffs had sustained, or might sustain, might be assessed, and that the defendant might be decreed to pay damages to the plaintiff in substitution for specifically performing the said agreement : and that the defendant might be restrained from leasing to any other person to the prejudice of the plaintiffs. The matter had been before the Court in January last, and subsequently in the shape of an action, entitled "A- R. Hay v. Hogg and Hutton and Somervell." Hogp: and Hutton had accepted four bills of A. R. Hay, and, by way of security, got a Teceipt in full for three years* rents (Hogg and Hutton were sub-tenants of the premises under Hay, who was lessee), and the reieipt provided that, in the event of Hayj retiring the acceptances when due, the receipt would become null and void. The bills ■were for Ll5O each. When the first bill became due, Hay did not retire it (though he alleged forgetfulness on his part), and afterwards waited on Hogg and Hutton with the amount of the bill, which tender they refused to receive. They had retired the other three bills, and declared that he had been willing to retire the first. According to Hay. the transaction was merely for hia (Hay's) personal benefit, and the question was whether Somervell should be bound by the transaction. Evidence was taken, and at the conclusion of the plaintiffs case, Mr Macassey, for defendant, submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury. His Honour ruled that there was a case to go to the Jury. Some argument took place as to which side should have the right of making the last speech, and The point was not decided, when The Court adjourned till next day.

Tuesday, 19th October.