SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5134, 16 October 1884, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Civil Sittings.

THIS DAY. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) VON SCHOENEBERG V. GUMI'RICH. Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff. There was no appearance on the other side. Mr Joynt informed the Court that there was, he understood, no warrant to defend filed, and nothing equivalent to it, although a statement of defence had been put in.

tthis, however, was simply a general denial, which under the new rules amounted to no defence at all. He would formally apply for judgment for the plaintiff. His Honor did not think that a general denial was in all cases insufficient. The safest course for the plaintiff was to say that there was no appearance. Upon the Whole plaintiff had better prove his case. Mr Joynt opened for the plaintiff, to the effect that the defendant had ordered from plaintiff a quantity of goods valued at £150, and had taken away one article. He eventually refused to take delivery and returned the article, which, however, he declared had been made a present to him. Mr Joynt cited Scott v. Eastern Counties Bailway Company, 12 Meeson and Welsby 33, and called the following evidence : — Frederick Herman Von Schoeneberg, cabinet-maker: Knew Charles Gumprich, ■who was living at Carl's Hotel in April last. Mr R. Wark introduced him to witness as a countryman. Defendant said le was going to stay a year or two in Christchurch and New Zealand, and asked plaintiff to furnish a house for him. He asked how much it would co3t to furnish a honse of five or six rooms. Witness said ibet * een £100 and £200. He said he would | take the medium of £150. He got £72,000 B—d while he was here got £4000 or •£SOOO in mocey and goods, to open a shop 5n Christchurch. He picked out several articles of furniture to the amount of £110, and ordered a few to be made, to the amount of £40 more. Witness undertook to give the whole for £150. He took an Inkstand, a Swiss carving, part of a secretary, with him. This was to be included within the £150. The secretary was worth £25. Undertook to have everything ready for him in a fortnight, on his return fiom Wellington. Defendant returned the inkstand in the course of three months. It was returned with a letter in German. A piece was broken off the inkstand and it had been used. He sent no money nor offer of money. (Letter read stating that defendant had travelled to Christchurch under a false name in order to deceive plaintiff, and suggesting that the inkstand had been a present). Knew nothing that could have led defendant to think the inkstand was intended as a present. The goods were iairly worth £150. Believed defendant to _c now in Melbourne. He was not in Christchurch, as he made out in the letter. Formerly, when a poor man, he made his living by music and betting on races. Heard that he did not intend to return, and sent notice to him by his solicitor on June 5. He replied to the effect that plaintiff was a stranger to him, and he had never arranged to take any furniture ; that the whole affair was a lie, and an attempt to get money out of him. Rudolph Wark, commission agent : Introduced defendant to plaintiff, and was present when the furniture was ordered. Had heard what the previous witness had said; it was all true. Defendant asked witness if any money should be paid on account, and witness replied, " As you have treated Schoeneberg as a friend, he might feel insulted if you offered him money." Nothing was said of defendant's letting plaintiff know in a fortnight. Defendant instructed witness to keep his eye open for a house to let. Received a telegram on June 4 saying that defendant would not start business here in consequence of what had had happened. This did not refer to this case. Witness informed plaintiff immediately. His Honor gave a verdict and judgment for £150 and costs on the lower scale. At 11.30 a.m. the Court adjourned till 11 a.m. to-morrow (Friday).