SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 4770, 10 October 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Civil Sittings, Monday, Oct. 9. (Before Mb Honor Mr Justice Denniston and a Special Jury of twelve.) BENNY V. FRHCDLANDBB. Mr Stringer, with him Mr Wilding, for i the plaintiff; and Mr Puraell, with him : Mr Russell, for the defendant. In this case, Joseph Benny, a farmer at Southbridge, the plaintifE, claimed £750 from thedefendants, Friedlander Brothers, merchants of Ashburton, as damages for the alleged wrongful Beiznre of a flock of sheep. Mr Stringer asked his Honor to allow him to join the Bank of Australasia with the plaintiff. The consent of the Bank had been obtained, and the rules allowed it. The issue would practically be the same. His Honor said he had no power to join another plaintiff at this stage of the case. At all events it would affect the costs, as the defence had been prepared when there was only one plaintiff. After a short argument his Honor made a note of the application, and said the plaintiff could move for the joining of another plaintiff at a later stage, if it waß so desired. Then he would satisfy himself .as to whether he could grant it or not. The only thing to go to the jury was questions of fact and the right of the claim, and anything else cou'.d be argued afterwards. This closed the case for the plaintiff: Mr PurneU submitted that no assignment had been proved, and asked for a nonsuit. His Honor made a note of the point, but declined to grant a nonsuit at the present stage of the case. Mr Russell opened the defence/ and said the question of assessing the damages was the only one to be put to the jury. The defence would be confined to proving that no loss had been sustained by the plaintiff by,any action of the defendants. The various parts of the chum would be disputed and disproved, and evidence of a conclusive nature brought. The greatest possible care had been taken of the flock, and by no carelessness had any lambs been lost. The Court then adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on the following day. THIS DAT. BENNY V. FBIEDLANDEE. Mr Stringer, with him Mr Wilding, for plaintiff j Mr Purnell, with him Mr Russell, for defendants. Evidence was led for the defence as opened by Mr Russell, consisting of a denial of the allegations that loss among the flock had occurred in the degree stated in the claim, or that any loss had resulted from the carelessness of those acting for the defendants. ~ Mr Purnell addressed tie Jury upon the defence, and Mr Stringer 'followed for the plaintiff. The only question the Jury had to consider was whether or not loss had been occasioned to the plaintiff by the action of the defendant. Mr Stringer having reviewed the evidence, His Honor summed up, directing the Jury to find if any damages had been sustained, and if so, how much. The delay in bringing the action had been for the best part explained, but it was bound to prejudice the defendant's case. The question of nominal damages was not for the Jury, and that the proper parties were suing, and that the legal points were in order had to be taken as granted for the purposes of the verdict. The plaintiff claimed loss on account of a fall in market velnee, owing to delay caused in the sale of the sheep by the defendant, but the evidence on that point was not very strong or conclusive. The long lapse of time necessarily made most of the evidence weak. The evidence brought by the defence contradictedin every detail that of the witnesses i for the plaintiff, and it was for the Jury to sift it and see which was to be believed. The evidence all through with regard to misconduct needed no comment from him (his Honor). The shepherd in charge of the flock appeared to have had the con- ' fidence of everybody concerned, and > v to have been left entirely to himself to do ; the best he could for the sheep. .He had deposed that he - had done \ so, and had received no instructions one way or another as to the management. Of conrse the Jury could i find a trespass, and hold that the parties j taking possession of property were liable I for any deterioration that took place. If | so the Jury could say how much deterioration had taken place, and give the plaintiff a verdict for the amount. The Jury retired at 1.30, and returning in five and twenty minutes gave a verdict for the plaintiff under the second head of the claim for £200. Mr Stringer reserved all Questions of law. [Left sitting."]

Beligious Teaching.— -On Sunday evening, at the Trinity Congregational Church, the Key Sidney J. Baker delivered" a sermon on "State Schools and Religious Instruction." After referring at Borne length to the agitation for the introduction into the schools of a : religious textbook, he said that the charge that the present system was godless and heathenish was groundless. He quoted from the Eoyal Eeaders 11. and 111., and specially the chapter on the Conduct of Life in Eoyal Eeader V. He ventured to say that if the boys and girls in the Fifth Standard throughout the land only strove to practise what they read and learned in that series upon con* duct they would not only tarn out honeßt workmen and just and considerate employers, but they would also have some, real and abiding fear of God constantly before tbeir eyes. It was the duty of the State to undertake religions teaching. He would not like to see State-aid given to denominational schools, but thought it was not impossible to decide upon a plan of religious instruction in the State schools that would be generally acceptable to the whole body of people, even including the Roman Catholics. Such a compromise had been effected in Ireland and New South Wales, and what had been found practicable elsewhere waa surely not bo difficult of realising here,