IN THE SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume IV, Issue 494, 16 August 1890, Page 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT.

[SPECIAT REPORTER.] It has been said, whether unjustly or not it is not necessary to pause to consider, that the best way togain the attention of a Britisher is to take some steps that will affect his pocket. But whether it is that a lesser number of pockets are affected or that the aforesaid statement is a libel, it is certain that there is not nearly the interest taken in the civil Court business by the public as there is taken in the least important of

THE CRIMINAL CASES. There was even in those little of interest this session. One fine-looking Maori calm’y confessed that he had been guilty of forgery, and thereby got a twelve months’ sojourn in Mount Eden. Another Maori, an ill-looking character, pleaded not guilty to hore.esteding, and brazened out the clearest evidence, seeking the assistance of no lawyer, and being rewarded with a trip to the City of the North, to remain in the Government service for th? space of twelve calendar month’. Then came a case with some exceedingly interesting features, Paratene and Te Whare Turangi being accused of appeasing their inner man by making a rail upon Mr Clark’s sheep, while about the same period the accused bad to do with the ceremonies of opening a church. Te Whare was soon allowed his freedom, Mr Cooper making the suggcs’ive remark that he wondered how the Grand Jury camp to find a true bill against him. The evidence was plain that the sheep hid’been stolen, and the evidence gave hints tint Mr U’Ren keeps some good wine, at lent wine that is relished by natives who do not go through the formality of paying for it; also that ducks and other poultry are to bo found at the Arai. But (< to our mutton?,” the only evidence against Paratene individually was tba*. of a gay looking’ native youth who coolly acknowledged that he had stolen Te Whare’s horse just for fun; that he had been -guilty of other reprehensible conduct just for fun, and white professing to understand a plan, which it was perfectly plain he did not, averred he saw Paratene, at a spot in the paddock which it would require second si <ht to observe from that position. Under Mr Rees’ skilful treatment the funloving youth was shown to the satisfaction of the jury to be an extraordinary perverter, and the dark-skinned Paratene was, in a legal sense, cleansed as white as the fleece of Mr Clark’s best hoggets. Such is a summary of the criminal cases. William Black, accused of the murder of Robert Streeter, is . not to be left to the mercies of a Gisborne jury; and those who want to know the reason why, must outlive their curiosity, and content themselves with the fact that His Honor is satisfied that a change of venue is necessary. One who sat for three days in the R M. Court, directly opposite that pale, stolid face, with its flxi’y of expression, not changed by any incident in Court, has no desire to again have such au experience. THE CIVIL BUSINESS. As was previously said civil business has not been sufficiently interesting to attract a large attendance in Court. At times the number dwindled down to about thirty. Why, Mr Mila’s Shakespearian performances were supposed to do bally, but they drew better houses than can ba got at a free display of forensic capabilities. A large amount of interest certainly was taken in the cases arising out of Karaftiana'e estate, but when it was found that the itsuei depended upon abstruse law points all the public saemad to care fir was to know the result. Even yet many pa 'pie seem to have only a mystified notion of what th?ae ca?es were all about. Thera were two claims, one for £750 and the other for £275. interest on money borrowed from the late H. O. Glynn by the trustees in Karaitiana’s estate (Messrs Pitt and Bennetti. Recently Mr Albert Karaitiana came of age, and his solicitor got the Court to make an order taking the management of the estate out of the hands of tho then trustees, and Mr J. Coleman was appointed to oae of the vacancies to act conjointly with Mr Albert Karaitiana. Mr Finn formerly acted as solicitor both fir the trustees in the estate and for Mr Glynn. Mr Nolan, for Messrs Pitt and Bennett, acknowledged that the money had baen borrowed and should be paid by the estate, but the nam?s of Messrs Coleman and Karaitiana hiving been added to the list of defendants, Mr Rees, on behalf of ih? heir, s?t up the defence that the money, though borrowed on 'he security of the estate, was neither required for the use of the estate, nor applied for such a purpose, and that Mr Finn having acted as solicitor for Mr Glynn, th? latter bad constructive nr imputed knowledge that such m mey had baen wrongfully borrowed on the security of the estate. It was also alleged that part ot this money had been used for the private purposes of Mr Finn—in fact the defence set up left a very serious imputation on the former trustees and solicitor,

OPENING THE BiLL On Wednesday morning the jury after being weeded by many challenges, were finally empanelled, and after a little legal sparring as to who should have first say His Honor decided that Mr Cooper (representing the executor in Glynn's estate) should be permitted to take the preliminary. The jury looked as though they meant to understand the case, though there was the faintest suapiaion they really did not know what counsel was driving at when “ relevant ” and “irrelevant issues ” were beiog dilated on, Mr Oooper, however, contented himself with hinting what he would do about these relevant and irrelevant issues when tha proper time cam®, and at that period did no more than putting in the formal proofs that the money was owing. The jury were now given an inkling of what “ affpma'ive issues ” were, whan Mr Rees rose and delivered a regnUr legal broadside upon Messrs Bennett and Finn, it being acknowledged that there was blissful ignorance on the part of Major Pitt. The jurymen were observed to shift in their seats and making suggestive nods and glanoss towards one another, and if they been askqi to give a verdict at that moment there was not much doubt hiw it would have gone. But there was ANOTHER SIDE to the question, and as Mr Finn, to response to Mr Reca, had entered tho box, carrying with him a leather bag containing papere, the courteous apd dignified Mr Power administering the oath when Mr O »Qpev quietly got up and commanded him to break off his recital with a dash. Gradually rJung hi? voice Mr Cooper g*ve warning of tho deluge that was to ooma, and suggested that tho jury shou’d bo rolevaod until 2 p.m , Mr Finn having meanwhile resumed his seat. So off went tho jury to sun themselves, and off went Mr Cooper, soaring into a wor-d of teohnioiljtios that immediitely absorbed all lav? s'udents. and with almost equal oe’erity emptied the Court of all whose minds did not rise above tho ordinary level. He has a pleasant voice, low but distinct, with variations of tone according to the points raised.. He analysed the legal niceties and subtle distinctions of the law dealing with such cases, and laid emphasis on the fact that the imputations on the trustees and Mr Finn were only allegations, and which, he was instructed, cou'd be disproved. Shortly after luncheon on VVednesday the case was adjourned until Thursday morning, when Mr Raes was to take up K ABAITIANA'S BIDE of the argument. A quarter of an hour wa* lost in arranging tho other business, and then Mr Rees rose, heading tho skirmish with the usuyl (t May it please, your Honor,” a preface which His Honor always seems to regard with the profouudest indifferen ‘e, a 3 though at sqch a period an expression of opiniou would be rather premature. On Mr Rees’ right sat Mr apd before them was a monster array of law bojks, bristling with paper marks. Quotation after auotitiou was made, all to bear out the point that, taking the legal aspect, a misappropriation had been mide, aud that Messrs Pitt, Bennett, and Finn were personally liable and not Karaitiana’s estat Vfhen Mr R es hud got well into the subject it was evident that he was on a forlorn hope so far as His Honor was concerned, for the latter kept breaking in and clinching tho points that told against the defen -e. and said that ho was laying down a proposition on which he had not produced definite authority. , Mr Reas regretted that the books ho wished Vo quote from could nut bu

obtained in Gisborne, the law library being a very small one He concluded his arguments at 11 20, and thtn Mr Cooper took up twenty minutes in assailing the law barricade erected by Mr Eees. He complimented that gentleman on sincerely wishing to adduce all information on the subject, and then he ingeniously interpreted many of the Acts quoted in quite a different light. HIS HONOR SUMMED UP very briefly, saying that he had no doubt in his mind from the very moment that Mr Bees admitted that ihe plaintiff had no notice except euch aamipht be constructive or imputed—through Mr Finn being his solicitor. In regard to a point raked about antecedent fraud, he said there must be antecedent steps, and assuming the allegations in this case were true, it was not likely that the facts wonld be disclosed to Mr Glynn. He would direct the jury to return a verdict for the amount claimed. It bis judgment was an erroneous ore there was a remedy. The jury were then ealled, and Bis Honor briefly addressed them. He explained the nature of the defence set up ty the added defendants— that the mortgage was invalid because of fraud, and that the plaintiff had implied notice cf that fraud. It bad been admit'ed for the purpose < f argument that all the added defendants had established was true, that there was a fraud in the execution of the mengage and in the appropriation cf the moneys rais c d under it. He had argument before him as to whether the allegations, assuming them to be true, affected the plaintiff s claim, and he nad ruled that it did not effect the p’aintiff under the circumstances. His Honor had no necessity to enquire into the alleged fraud. Even supposing all the allegations proved it wou’d have been hts duty to direct the jury as a matter of law to return a verdict for the amount claimed, £750. The jury then returned a verdict in accordance with His

Honor’s ruling, costs being allowed. It was agreed that in the second case, claiming £525, Messrs Rees and Cooper would sign a paper, accepting a similar judgment as in the first, without recourse to a jury. So ended these cases, and the Registrar then went forward and handed the jury a pound each (civil allowance at 10s a day), and they retired, smiling, evidently thinking that being a jurym-in is not such a bad way to serve one’s country when half an hour’s actual sitting each day is found sufficient. RINGING IN THE CHANGES. As a kind of commentary on the foregoing cases the next one was put through with remarkable economy of time, Mr Allan McDonald, a nephew cf the fotmer M.H.R, of the it me name, sued G. R, Wyllie and A. McDonald for £64 14? 2d for wages due.

Mr Nolan, fcr the defence, asked that the case be struck out, as the defendant was out of the colony and had 'never been served with the summon?. His Honor ruled io accordance with application. The case in question had been set down for hearing two sessions ago, by Mr Brassey.who is the solicitor for plaintiff, but on an application being made by Mr Wyllie it was struck eff the het of cases for hearing that session, on the ground that it had been set down too early. Sine? then Mr Brasney has removed to Napier, and the plaintiff himself is in Australia or somewhere. The case was again set down last week, this time by Mr Wyllie*s solicitor, wrh the result stated. Now [followed a little ekiimiah about the r hearing of the case Reep ▼. Common, claim £496 7s 6d for debt and damages. The case had been set down for that day, but Mr Nolan was not prepared to go on, and wanted it postponed until next week, saying that the defendant was unable to he in Gisborne in time. Mr Cooper pressed for the case to be gone on with, offering the defence every facility in regard to documentary evidence, and saying that the defendant’s presence was nc.t necessary. His Honor said that Mr Nolan ought to have been prepared. As Mr Chrisp was waiting, in readiness for the case of REES 4.NP DAY V, J. H. STUBBS, it was decided to take that case first, and allow the other matter to be discussed afterwards The claim was for £lO2, debt and interest. Mr Rees conducted their own case. This was a dispute concerning professional work in regard to native land titles, and in reality the decision rested upon the interpretation of an agreement. Mr Pay gave evidence to the effect that the work bad been done, and that if ihe Fems were fully pet out they would be entitled to claim double the smouut of costs. Mr Stubbs’ evidence wss in the direction that if any work had been done by Mr Bees it wa? the native? who were responsible and not him. Mr Chrisp made (the beet of the points in his clients favor, but His Honor came to the conclusion that the work had been done, and that by his interpretation of the agreement Mr Stubbs was responsible, and he gave judgment for the amount claimed. In the course of his evidence Mr Stubbs said he did not know that a title bad b°en granted in the Manatgu cae, but Mr Jackson's evidence showed that the tjtle deed bad been signed and that only the fees and stamp duties required to bejpsid on it. It was 25 minutes past 4at this time, and the Court had become bitterly cold, with a refrigerating draught blowing in from the front, and being met by dampgus's from the door at the rear of the stage, which the legal gentlemen have a great fondness for leaving open, as though to nicely air the reporters. Mr Cooper asked that the case be left over until the morning, as it was then very cold, and they would take some time. Bis Honor smilgd as mupb as to say that be felt all that Mr Cooper had said about the cold, and agreed that eleven next morning should be the hour fixed.

yesterday’s work At 10 yesterday morning the Court opened, and there was the interesting audience apart from those professionally engaged of one Eure, pean and 11 natives, nearly half of the latter being women. Strapge to say those professionally engaged, including reporters (but not sounting Mr Croft) just gave an equal number, Mr Croft making the baker’s dozen. The bankruptcy cases were first taken, when a Maori, Boana Hfcutapu, fjr whom Mr Watson appeared, wag granted' a’ legal whitewash. Baveral other interesting cases were expected to ooms on, but were conspicuous by their absence. However, "an appeal from? the Registrar’s decision was not without interest. Mr Sievwright, on behalf of Mr'.Lascelles, of Napier, appealed in the cesa of E. ff. Ward, whom the Registrar ha# ref used to adjudge a barjtrujjt oh the return of a writ for £5O, being what ths lawyers term nulla, bona Mr Bees represented Mr Ward. After 25 minutes’ argument Bis Honor dirmissed the appeal with five guineas costs, saying that he considered the Registrar had Dot only acted with dkeretion, but also in Rocotdance with law.

REES V. COMMON. At eleven a.m. the case of Rees. v. Common wart taken, There was then the extraordinary public attendance of one Maori and two pakehas, or vice veria as the case may be, with Constable Beddell standing in the parage abreast of the audience. The jMaori goon discovered be had business outside and retired, and by 11.25 the attendance of Europeans totalled not a solitary aboriginal gracing the Court with bis presence. Mr Cooper had opened the cas and wen: fully into the facts alleged, concluding after noon. go catc had arisen oqt of ike sale of th para'property. Mr Cooper read a great deal of correspondence concerning (the position, the contention being that Mr Rees was prepared to promptly pay, in Dumfries, on the due date, but had been prevented from doing so by arrangements made between :ha mortgagee (Mr John Henderson) and the mortgagor (Mr Common), There had bee"

litigation over the ipstter before ihe Chi J Juqjce in which the result had been to Mr Bees' detriment, and then that gentleman had stated that would stand upon his legal rights. The only point which he thought the defence eould raise was that Mr Day, after goDßhUauon wjih Mr £keet, had written sa letter asking for the sale to be postponed for 14 days, But Mr Bee. hid arrived in the oo'onj that day, Mr Day's power of attorney was therefore cancelled, and Mr Meet uad jiimself seen the principal in Wellington &t)d positively stated that he would iiaiffi upon his legal right*. Mr Day's action had been without communicating with Mr Bees, and ths suggestion was that those acting tor Mr Common had telegraphed up to see what .con'd be arranged with Mr Pay, seeing that Wrltees was not to be moved in the matter. SB Biss DEPOSED

that itt 1885 he was the owner of the Hapara property, which he transferred to

Mr Common, under the special circumstance that Mr Common gave him a lease back I with a purchasing clause. There was then no encumbrance on the property. The optional purchase was completed at the proper date in February. He signed a transfer (30th April, 1888) which was signed by Mr Shelton as Mr Common’s attorney, and subsequently ratified by Mr Common. The consideration was for £125, with a mortgage of £2,000 from Mr Common to Mr Henderson, of Dumfries, Scotland. Was not present when the deed was signed, but after the £425 was paid, learned that the certificate was in Scotland, and Mr Shelton promised to get it Mr Shelton was attor ney, he understood, both for Common and Henderson. [His Honbr said there would not have been time to get it from Scotland, and Mr Cooper si id he believed as a matter of fact the certificate was not in Scotland at all ] Mr Day was bis attorney No arrangements were made as to paying interest. In October he wrote to Henderson asking

what Bank he should pty the interest (Letter put in). Received a reply sayin? that the interest had been remitted by Mr Common. Mr Day had paid Mr Shelton in Gisborne. Had gone to Dumfries to see Mr Henderson, in consequence of information from Mr Day. Had made arrangements tn provide the money for getting a transfer of the mortgage. Saw Mr Henderson’s mana ging clerk, told him his business. £Mr Nolan objected to any conversations with MrHender?on orhiae’erk being repeated as evidence, and. His Honor upheld the objection.] Mr Henderson was at the time absent from Dumfries. On the n»*xt day in London, he recrivpd a letter from Mr Henderson, on March 10, saying that Mr Common had taken up the mortgage. Was anxious about the matter, and wrote the le'.ter referred to Received a reply on the 12 h. [A good deal of further correspondence put in]. Left Eng land on May 2, and the very day he arrived found there were proceedings pending in his name for an injunction. [Papers put in.] The Chief Justice dismissed the application, as the proceedings were by Mr Henderson against Mr Common, ana he was ruled a

strang* r in the matter. After the judgment given Mr Common said they would hold over the sale for a month if he (Mr Hees) would find the money for the mortgage debt, and the interest and law costs. Declined to have anything to do with the offer, and being pushed out of the property would pursue his legal remedy. The place wa s subsequently sold, and h* believed bought by Mr Chrisp for Mr Common and Mrs Davidson. Did not interfere with the sale, but went out {□[accordance with notice. Denied that the sale 'bad been postponed at his request, or upon bis authority. Had flatly refused to Mr Edwards, who had then communicated wi'h Mr Common in Gisborne, Arrived in Gisborne six days later. All parties knew tha’ he was passionately attached to the place, and that would account for Mr Day’s endeavor to stay the sale. Had been forced out of it after tent years’! ’residence, and bai then shifted his family to Auckland. Altogether claimed £496, which he had lost through Mr Common’s action. EXAMINED BY MR NOLAN, Witness said there might have been a mortgage oh the property when Mr Common bought it. The bond produced arose through a case in which Mr Common was concerned. The Judge ruled against the advice given by Mr Rees’ managing clerk, and witness thinking there was some moral claim foolishly indemnified Mr Common against the costs, giving his wife’s property as security. His return for that was to have his property

sold and his family turned out of thtic home. When in London an order was presented him for payment, the interest being due in September and being paid subsequently in Nrw Zealand by Mr Day. Declined to pay in London, after receipt of Mr Her.derson’t

letter that the money bad been paid in Nr-w Zealand by Mr Common. Had tendered the money to Mr Henderson himself. Would wave made any sacrifice to retain the place, to which he was so much attached. In reply to Mr Cooper be had made all arrangements for the money to be paid to Mr Henderson in Dumfries, when that gentleman wrote to him telling him about his wanting it to be paid in New Zealand.— The hands of the clock now demonstrated that the time for luncheon had arrived, and the significant glances which His Honor and his intelligent-looking associate made in the direction of the chronometer, showed one that after all individuals in such high capacities are only ordinary mortals, and cannot live without sustenance At five minutes past one the cross-questioning was completed, and

THE LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT wss made until five minutes past two. On resuming Mr Day was called, and w°nt minutely into the facts of the case. Received no notice that the mortgage had been taken up by Mr Common, until the assignment to Mr Chrisp. Mr Shelton was continually pressing him about the money, and he cabled to Mr Rees, who replied th it he arranging with Mr Henderson. On being informed that the property was to be sold he cabled to Mr Rees, and received an answer that it was a fraud, to serve a writ upon Mr Common, and try and get an injunction restraining the sale.- Regarding the letter he had written, Mr Skeet had met him in the street and asked him if he could not try and get the matter settled. He, knowing how fond Mr Bees was of the place, endeavored to try and raise the sum claimed, irrespective of what Mi’ Rees had done in Scotland. He had gone into Mr Skeet’s office and written the letter asking that the sale be postponed for a fortnight, but bad told Mr Skeet rhat his making the request would not affect any action Mr Rees might take. Mr Skeet must have known that Mr Rees was then in the colony—the information had been published in the papers. His Honor said that the fact of Mr Rees being in the colony would not cancel the power of attorney, but if it was only contended that the request did no more than protect Mr Chrisp against action, it would hold good. Mr Cooper said his recollection was that such a power was can celled immediately on the return to the colony of the person giving it, but it was. not necessary to urge that, as they relied that such a letter did no more than His Honor suggested, prevent action being taken against the purchaser of the property. Witness was examined at grsat length, finishing at 10 past 3. That concluded the plaintiff’s case.

EHR defendant’s case, said Mr Nolan, was an absolute denial that they ever refused to give ihe certificate of title, or that they had been aske 1 for it. The law, tqo, he thought was with them. Rees bad bought tor £2425, but he had not paid the mortgage, even after time had been allowed, Such was an abandonment of the

contract and ousted him from ad rights—in fact so far from attempting to pay, plaintiff, he alleged, bad attempted to evade payment. The non-application for the certificate of title he tonk to be an admission. His Honor : Well if anyone "gets in the "box and

swears that there was no such application I would advise hjm to be cautious, as both Mr Rees and Mr D.ay have said ihnre was such application, Mr No'an said he had been ic-= stiucied that it would be denied. His Honor said it would be very foolish for Mr Bees and Mr Day to go into the box and make such statements unless they were positive the evidence was likely to ba substantial. Mr Cooper eaid the probabilities were also in their favor. MrNoknwas about to put in correspondence that had taken place between Messrs She I .ton and when Mis Honor said he surely djd not expect |o be allowed to put that |n t Mr Na’an said more private perreypondenoe than that had been produced on the 91 har aide. Mr Cooper said not & letter had been put in except those between principals, and a telegram which Mr Nolan had asked him to put in,

y. J. was ealled for the defence, and there was soon a little sparring about some papers he had in his hand. Mr Cooper objected to his refreshing his memorygwith extracts, and His Honor ruled that this was not allowable. He then gave formal evidence, going on smoothly until he stated that the mortgage deed was in the Union Bank. His Honor (sharply): Did i you instruct your solicitor to prepare the' defence in this case ? Witness replied in the affirmative, and His Honor asked what was meant by the statement that these documents were in Boolland, Witneau replied that it

had been intended to send them, and ke imagined they bad been sent to Mr Henderson. His Honor: Did you know that when this action was taken ? Witness replied in the affirmative, and said that the deeds were in the Union Bank clearly on account of Henderson. Witness continued, saying that he had received an order for the interest—that had been sent home, and returned unpaid. Told Day that Pilgrim and Philips had sent word that Mr Rees had been expecting a remittance from New Zealand, and Mr Day had made statements to him to the effect that he knew Mr Rees anticipated a remittance. He had never been asked for the certificate of title, by Mr Rees or anyone, and he said this in full recollection of His Honor’s caution about the evidence that had been given for the plaintiff. Two orders were put in, at the request of Mr Cooper, being May 13, £750, 90 days’ sight, and June 2, £750, at 20 days’ eight. Mr Common had written to him that he had sent to Mr Henderson £5OO to be placed against the debt on the mortgage when it came due. CROSS-EXI MINED BY MR COOPFR. Said distinctly that the evidence of Mr Rees and Mr Day is false concernins; the certificate of title. His reason for saying the certificate of title was in Scotland was that he could not find it among the pap?-r? at that time. the statement filed in the defence was not true, that the ceriifi- ate of title was in Scotland. Believed that deed was there until he had a reply from Mr Henderson, to a letter in April, 1888, saying he had not got it. Still thought it was in Scotland in April, 1889. Did not actually receive on May 10, 1889, the money from Mr Chrisp as shown in the mortgage. Never, as Mr Henderson's attorney, received any money from Mr Carisp. A trust of which Mr Chrisp had just been appointed bead, on 10th May paid £1,500, the £5OO sent Home by Mr Common making up the £2OOO. Witness went on to explain that the trust referred to was one that had been formed wi h Mr Common’s money, so as to save him loss. Mr Cooper casually referred to the trust as a juggle. Witness (in tably): I don't see how it w<-s a jugule. His Honor (severely) : A jugg’e ? A swindle, I call it 1 Witness: What was a swindle ? His Honor (more severely): Don’t ask me questions—be careful ; I can hardly keep my temper in this place, hearing such things of a man in your position. Mr Cooper continuing his examination, witness said he saw the draft produced was paid on May 33, 1889, although it was now taken to be on the tenth—Mr Henderson wassat ; efied.

FORMAL EVIDENCE was given by Messrs Lysnar and Skeet. The latter said that he had in the matter of th? trust acted as solicitor under Mr Shelton’s instruotioDS. He lesiifiad as to Mr Day’s letter; to which there was a postscript saying ’hat the delay would not prejudice any action Mr Rees might take. Witness refuse 1 to postpone the sale unless the pos script was eliminated, which was done by Mr Day, and the Sheriff was instructed to delay the sal?. To Mr Cooper : Was acting under Mr Shelton’s instructions primarily, Mr Shelton also representing Messrs Chi isp and Common. Did not bslieve Mr Day said it did not matter whether or not the postscript were struck out, but would not swear absolutely. Had acted as solicitor in the matter of iho mortgage, but had given no formal notice to Mr Rees, who was absent. CONCLUSION. This completing the evidence, His Honor offered, as Mr Nolan had said on the previous day :hat he wished to get the evidence cf Mr 1 Common, to adjourn the case at that stage if ; Mr Nolan thought the absence of such evidence ’ wonld prejudice his case. Mr Nolan slid the • evidence would not really be material in regard : to the case, but he would like to get it so as : to clear up the question of the trust, which ; His Honor had spoken of in a light the reverse ! of favorable. His Honor replied that he ; might entertain hit own opinion on that, ! but that question did not aff'-ot the case. Mr Nolan then went over a'l the ground, though the case was clearly hopeless. His Honor, without calling on Mr Ooeper to reply, intimated hie intention to give judgment for plaintiff with the exception of an item of £lO 10< which Mr Cooper at once admitted ha could not see his Way to claim. This being arranged, His Honor gave judgment for £485 17s 61, with costs on the middle scale. Ha was astonished at the plaintiff’s moderation, and thought he might well under tha circumstances have asked for more. Had he claimed 10 per cent, interest instead of 5, he wou'd have allowed it, but he (the Judge) could not allow more than was claimed. It was, he continued, customary to give a summary of the evidence given, but he would not trust bi nself to do that in this case. The Court was then adjourned until 10 o'clock to-day.