NISI PRIUS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 561, 8 March 1870, Page 2

NISI PRIUS.

This Dat.

Hefore Mr Justice Gresson and a Common

Jury.) His Honor took his seat in Court precisely at eleven o'clock.

OaAUAH V. THOMAS, ROBERT, AND JAMES PEPPERILL.

The plaintiff in this action is James Edwin G nihil m, trustee in the bankrupt estate of John Pepperill. The action is one for possession of certain properties, alleged to have been wrongfully conveyed by the defendant to his wife and sons. Plaintiff claimed the sum of £250 as the value of the mesne profits.

Counsel for the plaintiff, Messrs Garrick and Harper. Counsel for defendants, Mr Wynn Williams. '■'.._■

Mr Henry Dunsford was chosen foreman of the jury. Mr Harper opened the pleadings.

Mr Garrick briefly stated the plaintiff's case, observing tbat plaintiff's right to possession was admitted by the pleading; all he would have to do, therefore, was to produce evidence as to the value of the mesne profits of ihe land and premises mentioned in the declaration.

Henry Hayes Hennah deposed : I know where. the defendants in this suit carry^ on their business as fellmongers. I believe it is on the land sought to be recovered in this action. Judging from the business that haa been carried on since the 4th February, 1868, and the accommodation afforded for that particular business, I should say that the premises hare been worth £100 a year. Irrespective of the wool-washing business, the premises would not be worth more than £50 a year, sinking the good-will of the business. The premises would be worth £100 a-year to anyone taking them for the purpose of carrying on the fellmongering business. . By Mr Williams : Sinking the buildings peculiar to the fellmongering business, I should think tho cottage and five acres of land would let for about £40 a-year. I cannot speak with certainty on this point.

Herbert Edward Alport : I know Pep-

perill's establishment. The cottage, land, and buildings, as they are now, ought to be worth frora £40 to £50, without reference to a business.

By Mr Williams : I have nofc let any land lately in that district. The buildings now used for fellmongering purposes might be used for cowsheds. The cottage and the five acres of land would let for about £30 ayear.

This was plaintiff's case, as to the value of the mesne profits. For the defendant, Charles Clark was called as a witness. He deposed that he had considerable experience in letting houses and land in and about Cliristchurch. fie had been down to the premises in question, with a view to ascertaining their value. The cottage and land (which is of a very infeiior quality, sandy, and only partly fenced), would be worth about !0s a week.

By Mr Garrick : Irrespective of the business, the property as it stands would be worth from £20 to £30 a-year. These are the highest and lowest estimates. It ia very difficult in thess times to fix the exact amount which the property would bring in per annum. This was the defendant's case. The jury, without retiring, found a verdict ior the plaintiff for £60.

The Court then adjourned sine die.