SUPREME COURT, DUNEDIN.

West Coast Times, Issue 1593, 4 November 1870, Page 3

SUPREME COURT, DUNEDIN.

ANDERSON AXD MOWAT V. BURKE.

After an eleven days' trial, the case of Anderson v. Burke, which will now rank among the causes celebres of the Supreme Court ot the colony, terminated on the 26th ult. The jury returned into Court at a quarter past eight, having been absent nearly six hours, and retnrned a verdict substantially in favor of the defendant. The findings of the jury in favor of the plaintiffs were on those issues relating to the purchases of oats at VVaikouaiti and Dunedin. A motion for a new trial is to be made in banco shorty. Referring to the case the Daily Times says : — '* It has created great interest, not only by reason of the peculiar circumstances of the case, but also because some of the evidence was so directly contradictory in plain matters of fact, that it is almost impossible to doubt that perjury has been committed by one or more of the witnesses. Opposing testimony is common enough in Courts of Justice, but in this instance the opposition is of a pecnliar kind, and not to be explained away."

The evidence in the case was extremely lengthy, and so were the addresses by counsel. Mr Smith spoke for three hours, and Mr Macassey for even a longer time. His Honor's summing up alone occupied four hours.

The following were the findings to the various issues : —

1. Was it on the 16th March, 1868 and after signing the agreement of that date between the plaintiffs, defendants, and Royse. Mudie, and Co., mutually agreed l>etween them that the plaintiffs should act exclusively in the purchase of grain and produce on account of the partnership ? Yes, exclusively in Dunedin, Taieri, Waikouati, and Tokomairiro ; and no further.

2. Did the plaintiffs consent to any, and which of, the purchases of oats made by the defendants, and mentioned in the Registrar's account No. 3, and there written in blue ink, being items numbered 1 to 20, both inclusive? Ye?, exceptßnrke'sDunedin purchases.

3. Did Messrs Royse, Mudie, and Co. consent to any and which of the said purchases? To all except Burkes Dunedin purchases.

4. Did the plaintiffs consent to any and which of the sales by the defendants of the oats comprised in the items numbered 12 to 36, both inclnsive, referred to in the Registrar's account No. 2, part 11. ? Yes, to all.

5. Did Messrs Royse, Mudie and Co. consent to any and which of the said sales ? Yes, to such sales as took place while they were connected with the venture.

6. Did the defendants consent to any and which of the purchases of oats by the plaintiffs rrom T. Anderson and Co. mentioned in the Registrar's account No. 1, and there written in red ink, being items numbered 93 to 97 both inclusive ? Not to one of the purchases.

7. Did Messrs Royse, Mudie and Co. consent to any and which of the said purchases ? Yes, as to 10,000 bushels.

8. Did the defendants consent to a resale by the plaintiffs to the said T. Anderson and Co., of the said last-mentioned oats ; and if so, at what price ? Yea, as to 7500 bushels, at 2s sd.

9. Were the wheat purchases mentioned in the Registrar's account No. 4 C, or any of them, made on account of the joirt adventure ? Yes, all of them.

10. If they were to made, was there any and what agreement between the plaintiffs, defendants, and Royse, Mudie and Co., or any two of them, as to the sale and disposal of the said wheat? No special agreement as to plaintiffs having a third of the wheat, as mentioned bj them. 1 1 . Did the plaintiffs consent to any and which of the Bales by the defendants of the wheat comprised in the items numbered 1 to 7, both inclusive, referred to in the Registrar's account No. 4D f Yes, to all.

12. Did the said Mcs«rs Royse, Mudie, and Co.. consent to any and which of the said sales ? Yes, t» such sales as took place while they were connected with the venture.

13. Wastbe transfer comprising the whole or any and what part of the 82,000 (or thereabouts) bushels of oats to Messrs Bright Brothers and Co. made on account of the joint adventure ? Ycs>, all except Burkes Dunedin purchases. In reply to Mr. Smith, His Honor said the Court could not sanction any extra payment to the jurors, as he found that the cases were against such a course.