SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Independent, Volume I, Issue 17, 27 June 1885, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before his Honor Chief Justice Pren-

DERGAST.)

CIVIL BUSINESS.

Malone v. Imperial Insurance Co,

Claim for 7 5 insurance upon premises and stock destroyed by fire. Mr. Kenny, with Mr. Finn, for the plaintiff, and Mr. Alexander for the defendant company. The defence set up was that the plaintiff neglected to forward to the company a detailed statement of his stock and amount of salvage; also, that an endorsement on the policy provided that t.ny action must be brought within twelve months of the cause of action arising. The plaintiff admitted neglecting to render detailed accounts. His Honor gave judgment for the defendants, with leave to move that judgment be entered up for plaintiff for the value of the buildings destroyed. Tucker v. P. Barker and another. Claim /’ll2, amount of annuity and interest. Mr. DeLjhtour for plaintiff, and Mr. Ward affa Mr. Whitaker for the defence, The plaintiff was nonsuited, as there was no covenant in the deed of conveyance that the defendants should pay the annuity. Official Assignee v. HamburgMagdeburg Co. Claim ,£2OO, on a fire insurance policy. Mr. Kenny and Mr. Finn for the Assignee, and Mr. Whitaker, with Mr Ward, for the company. The plaintiff was nonsuited, on the grounds that the inspection of the lease had been withheld from the company. Stevens v. Tutchen. Claim ZTSOO, damages for slander and libel. M r . Rees, with Mr. Cresswell, for the plaintiff, and Mr. DeLautour for the defence. After a number of challenges the following jury was sworn : —Messrs. H. Lewis (foreman), S. Stevenson, J. McGlnness, C. Young. J. Moody, J. Morgan, A. Ritchie, J. Mazengarb, S. C. Caulton, G. Lambie, H. Curry, and P. Callaghan It appeared from the evidence that shortly after the plaintiff’s house was burnt down at Patutahi in January, 1884, the defendant went to the insurance agent and informed him that a certain “ Charlie ” had seen some of Stevens’ men removing furniture from the house and “ planting ” it in the scrub, thereby insinuating that the fire had been arrangeu. He (Mr. Tutchen) also had spoken to several others in the same strain, whereby the credit of the plaintiff had been so seriously affected as to result in his seeking the protection of the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiff, H. McKay, Duncan Hepburn, Sergeant Bullen, M. Boland, C. D. Bennett, W. King, J. Townley. H. Boylan, C. W. Ferris and Josiah Tutchen having given evidence. His Honor in summing up said there was five causes of action, and although the evidence did not disclose any defined case of loss, yet it must be borne in mind that it was always a most difficult matter to clearly prove anything of the sou. In a case of libel it was a most difficult matter to say where the injury commenced and where it ended. Then again it was competent to award damages in the first place for loss and in the next place for injury to a mans feelings, and also as a punishment and a warning to the offender. In this case the ball had been put in motion by the defendant, and these sort of things would always be repeated, but persons should be made to suffer when they were found out. The first question for the jury to consider was the damages and what sum would meet the circumstances. If the damages were too small it would cast further slur upon the defendant by showing that they thought the case was of an insignificant nature. Bnt the

damages should be substantial. Of course the jury would have to consider the nature of the evidence, and he might point to that of Boland. It was always a matter for suspicion when at the last moment a witness came forward and offered to give important evidence. It was also for them to judge in the more remarkable case of McKay who in his first evidence said “ Stevens and his men,” and in cross-examination said it might have been “ Steven’s men.” It was hard to judge which version was right. One version was perfectly harmless whilst the other was most conclusive. They would also have to consider Cook’s evidence and also D. Hepburn’s who had stated that Tutchen had introduced the subject with the words “ 'Aint it awful about Stevens’ fire 1 Old Charley tells me that he saw men carrying stuff from the house the day before the fire and planting it in the scrub.” Of course they would have to judge of the inference against Stevens. He was not disposed to say more and would leave them to consider the evidence. There were four charges of slander and one of libel to be considered.

After an absence of about ij hours the jury returned into court with a verdict for the plaintiff on the libel count and damages ; and gave for the defendant on the four slander counts. Reardon and others v. N.Z.N.L.S. Company. Claim £l3B. Mr. Brassey for plaintiffs, and Messrs. DeLautour and Sievewright for the defence. Judgement for the plaintiffs for £lOB. Ratcliffe v. Davis. Claim X*s O ° for wrongful conversion. Mr. Brassey for plaintiff, and Mr. McDougal for the defence. The jury brought in a verdict for the plaintiff for but the Court directed that judgment should be entered for the defendant on the grounds that the conditions in the bill of sale had been broken. Leave was given for the plaintiff to move in banco for judgment to be entered up for him. Costs to be on die medium scale. Skillicorn v. Union Fire Insurance Company. Claim .£994 insurance on wool. The plaintiff was nonsuited, and leave given to move that the decision be reversed. N.Z.N.L S. Co. v. Reardon and OTHERS. Claim X'7so or possession of deeds, and £\2y for detention. Messrs. DeLautour and. Sievewright for the Company, and Brassey for the defence. Judgment was given for Ellison, and the decision in reference to the other cases reserved. Mullooly v. W. F. Hale. Claim X"s° f° r rent and damages. Mr. Rees for plaintiff, and Mr. T. J. McDougal for the defence. After hearing the evidence his Honor reserved his judgment until arriving at Napier. Bolton v. Nolan. Claim debt and damages Mr. Finn for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Sievewright and DeLautour for the defence. Judgment was given for the defendant. BANKRUPTCY. J. E. Harries, W. I. Petchell, E. Devery, E. O’Meara, J. Price, L. G. Direy, A. Stevens, Pene Heihi, J. McDowell, G. Bougen, D. Dunlop, J. Fisher, D. Dinan. J. S. Lincoln, Ann Nicolas, Margaret McKay and J. Brown attended before his Honor and passed their final examination without any opposition. The whole of the bankruptcies were closed. On the application of Mr. Nolan, Duncan McNab, E. A. Pavitt and W. Knights received their discharge.

On behalf of the debtors Mr. Nolan opposed the discharge of G. Beveridge and his Honor reserved his decision.

C. C. Lucas petitioned the Court to adjudicate Mr. Mackay a bankrupt. On the application of Mr. Cresswell the case was adjourned for a week.