IMPORTANT CIVIL SUITS.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 4985, 18 April 1889, Page 3

IMPORTANT CIVIL SUITS.

WILSON AND TAINE Y. BANK OF ZEALAND. By Telegraph. 51 INVERCARGILL, “April 17. la the Supremo Court the action, Batik of New Zealand v. Wilson Taine and Company, and the cross action, closed to-night. The special jury were unable to agree to a verdict, and the court gave instructions that they should be kept together for twelve hours. This has caused a difficulty as the second action between the parties should be taken 'to-morrow morning, and the special jury panel is so far exhausted that two or three of the present jury will bo required to go on with. The bank will be plaintiff in the second action, which is for the recovery of the overdraft, defendants setting up a claim of £3OOO on this case as damages arising from the dishonour of cheques other than those exhibited in the past action. Summing up to-day, Mr Justice Williams said that the issues were very simple, namely, was there, as defendants alleged, an agreement between the parties that No. 3, for all wool accounts, should be a trust account for the protection of the firm’s wool clients. If the jury thought that such an agreement had been made then there was only the assessment of damages to consider. Both partners deposed that the account was a trust-one, and that they expected cheques drawn on it to be paid although the open account was in debt. The bank manager on the other hand stated that ho had never understood that the account was in the nature of a trust, and produced the firm’s letter in which they asked for the opening of the account, and in which no mention was made of a trust. His Honour said that if an agreement had not been made, the firm could not succeed, as the bank was entitled to treat all a client’s accounts as one even if kept in different cities, and could refuse to honour cheques if the aggregate of the client’s deposits showed a debit. The action has excited as much interest as a trial for murder. The court has been crowded. April 18.

In the cross-action (Bank of New Zealand, claiming £964; Wilson, Taine and Go. claiming damages £2000) the jury, after being locked up all night to decide the following issue:—Was there any agreement made as alleged by the defendants in their counter claim, and if so lo what damages are the defendants entitled ?—failed to agree and were discharged. Sir Robert Stout proposed to g) on with the next case, in which the bank claimed £1540 and defendants £3OOO damages, but the judge said it was impossible to hear the case at this silling as the Easter holidays intervened and he had to be in Dunedin on Wednesday. Sir E. Stout said ho was willing that the judge’s notes should be laid before the second jury and witnesses called on fresh points only, but Mr Chapman, for the bank, would not consent to this. Sir E. Stout then said he would be agreeable to take the ease before a Dunedin jury. The judge thoughtjlhat the best plan. A temporary adjournment of judge and counsel to chambers for conference here took place, and on resuming the Judge said he had suggested the removal of the case, and a motion to that effect was before him, and would be heard in Dunedin. The two actions would probably bo consolidated so that both may be tried together, at as early a date as could be fixed. If it could be finally settled the venue would be changed to Dunedin. This closed the session, and the Judge left for the north by the express.