CIVIL SITTINGS.

Wellington Independent, Volume XVI, Issue 1692, 10 December 1861, Page 5

CIVIL SITTINGS.

Monday, December 8, 1861. A Civil Sittings of the Supreme Court was held in tbe Provincial Government Buildings, on Monday, the 9th December. His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston took his seat upon the Bench at 10 o'clock precisely. Joseph Angel, Edward Storab, and George John Squires, were severally fined 40s. for nonattendance at the opening of the Court. Subsequently the parties appeared in Court, and explained the cause of their absence, and their fines were reduced, the former to ss. and the other two to 2s. 6d. each. Tbe preliminaries of the trial having been arrauged, and the petty jury sworn, the follow-, iug case was called on. . "' CRAWFORD V. WALKER. Mr/ Kino appeared for the plaintiff, and stated that the action was brought by Mr. Crawford to recover from the defendant the amount of loss sustained by the plaintiff in carrying out the contract of the defendant for the supply of fresh bread to Her Majesty's Commissariat, at Wellingtoii,_JYoru -tbe~2BthMay, to 31st July last, the defendant baviDg made a breach in such contract. The defendant with plaintiff and another, entered into a Bond for the performance of such contract, and defendant having left the colony, the plaintiff had proceeded under the Absent Debtor's Act, in force in tbe Colony, and obtained a writ of Foreign attachment against the property of the defeudant, and the plaintiff had thereuuder procured certain debts to be paid into Court ; but which tbe plaintiff could not receive without having the amount of his claim against defendant found by a jury. Mr. King then called George Crawford, who proved that the Bond shewn to him was the one executed by the defendant, by Barry and himself, his sureties for the carryiug out of a contract for the supply of fresh bread to Her Majesty's troops at Wellington. Defendant made a breach in that Contvact on the 28th May and left Wellington. I received an intimation from the Commissariat Department of a breach of coutract. Mr.- Barry and myself carried out the contract to the end of the term ; I supplied all the money and the material, and Mr. Barry looked after the baking. The account produced shews my claim from the 29th May, to the end of July, to be in all £286 155,, as paid by me ; I have received from the Commissariat Department, for the months of June and July, the sum of £!71 Us. 9d. That is all that 1 have received on behalf Walker's, contract, leaving a balance in my favour of £115 3s. 3d. ; I supplied goods to defendant in August, 1860, to the extent of £21 12s. 6d ; I have received no portion of that; I have carried out the contract for the month of August, being the cud of the contract; I made no profit in that month, but a loss. : His, Honor then explained tbe law of the case, and the Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff—damages i 5136 15s. 9d. PIOKETr AND ANOTHER V. BURKE. The same jury having been again sworn, and there being no other case for trial, His Honor discharged the jurors who were in waiting with the thanks of the Queen and the Colony. Mr. Brandon appeared for the plaintiff, and stated the case to the jury. He said that this action was one commenced under similar cir- ( cumstanoes to the last. The defendant was out of the Colony, and a writ of Foreign Attachment had been obtained. No appearance had been made and the plaintiffs now sought from the jury an assessment of the amount to which they were entitled. The plaintiffs were haberdashers in Wellington, and the defendant was foreman in their employ. In Maioh, 1860, he entered into tin agreement with the Union Bank of Australia to purchase certain premises at Kai Warra. It was part of the arrangement that defendant should pay an instalment of the , purchase money to the amount of £400, and in ; consideration of that the plaintiffs would , guarantee the due payment of them at maturity ; the Bank agreed to accept two promissory notes ; of defendants for £200 each, payable at 9 and ; 1$ months. The plaintiffs gave their own pro* . missory notes to. the Bank, payable aj. the times : when the defendant's would become due. The r defendant's Promissory notes became due and

were dishonored ; whereupon the plaintiffs paid them and they were endorsed by the Bank to tliam. Defendant*' was al?o indebted to the .plaintiffs in the sum of £24 7s. 6d. Mr. Bran- ! don then called the following witness. ; Gilbert Piokett, being sworn stated — I am a haberdasher, in partnership with > Henry Owen, carrying on business in this Town ; I know Walter Burke ; he was in our employ ; he purchased the Waterloo Hotel, Kai Warra, from the Union Bank ; I became responsible for two promissory notes for £200 each, for part payment of the purchase money ; the notes produced are the same given by Defendant; they were not paid by defendant; I afterwards paid them ; I have received no consideration from Burke on account uf the riptes which I paid ; in the year 1860, between the months of February and July, I sold Burke goods, to the amount of £24 7s. 9d. ; the list produced, is a list of the goods sold to him ; the prices cbaiged are fair and reasonable. His Honor then addressed the jury, explaining the Jaw of the case, and they immediately returned a rerdict for the plaintiff, damages ! £424 7s. 9d. ; being the amount 6f the two j Bills for £200 each, and £24 7s. 9d. for goods supplied. The Court was then adjourned until Wednesday, (To^morrow,^ when the case of Atcheson v. Ferard will be tried.