No corrections yet
SUPREME COURT-TUESDAY. Nii Paiu, errriwes Arrsa zaT a. P. O'Brien u. Day and Reid.-In this case which was an action of assumipsit, for work and labour, and for an account stated-A verdict of £27 was returned for the plaintiff. Councel for the plaintiff, Mr. Wihdeyer; for the defendant, Mr. Foster,. Attornies for t he'plaintiff, Chambers and Thur ow; for the defendant. Poignand. William F.srbes v. WV G. Boucher.-This was an action of assumpsit, upon goods sold and de livered; and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff. Damages £93 9s. Counisel for the plaintiff, Mr. Broallhurst; for the defendant, Mr. Darvall. William Henry Barnes v. Thomas Macquoid. -In this case, which was an action of asunmpsit, for the agiatment of some horses, mules, and asses,-the defendant pleaded the general issue. By the evidence adduced. it appeared that, the action was brought for the keep of the oatilo, from February to May last. The cattle in ques. tion had been given up to the plaintiff to be kept about a week by one Osborne, the master of the ' Cunberland,' in which vessel they were brought from Valparaiso. The sheriff seized the cattle, as being the property-of one Dutton, under an ex ecution of one Peek, on the farm of the plaihtifl, near Kissing Point. Iyy order of the under sher iff' the-cattle were, however, suffered to remain on the plaintiff's farm, from February until May. Afterwards, the under sheriff gave the plaintiff an order of a Mr. Gosling, as the agent of As pinall and Browne and Co*, to pay to the plaintiff a sum of £891. for the' feed of the cattle, accor. ding to to the indemnity of Gosling to the sherift, There were 11fi head of cattle in all, and there were sir men in attendance upon them. The plaintiff had taken due care of the cattle, and he claimnd at the rate of 2s. per diem for all their expenses. For the defence, application was made for a non-aeit, on the grounds that, the pliantiff had not shown that the defendont-was legally liable to pay-him for the maintenance of the cattle. Mr. Justice Burton was of opinion that, there was sunlcient evidence of the existence of a con. tract to prove the liability of the defendant. The Solicitor General entered into a lengthy argument for the defence; and Mr. Justice Bur ton having summed up. y verdict was returned for the plaintiff, for £&601, WBDNK5DAY. 1 isi PriUs SITTINGS AFTER TERtM. Before Mr. Justice Stephen, and two Assessors Richard Jones e. John 'Carney.-The 1.laintiff in this case, brought an action of auaumpsit on the defendant's promissary note, for £53, 9s 1ed made payable in one month from the 2nd of April, 1841, in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant,put in a special plea, that no consideration had been received for the note, and thatIt -was made and delivered by mistake ; in asmuch, as it was for money due to the defendant, in completion of a certain purchase of land sold by the plaintiff, trading with others, under the denomination of the Australian Auction Com patty, as agent of a person named Oustey Con. dell, the owner of the land; but the defendant had paid Condell for the land, as the Auction Company had ceased to transact business. Upon this plea, issue was taken, Several witnesses were examined on either side; and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff, f Dsmages'X54 'Ps 10d. Counsel for the plaintiff, the Solicitor General and Mr. Darvall; for the defendant, Mr. Win deyer. Attornles for the plaintiff, Norton; for the defendant, Carr, Hogers, and Owen. Peter Stewart-v. Henry Rennie.-The plintiff *=- "tt A--. hrnnaht. an action of ursurnped for potatoes sold and delivered to Robert Remie, whose administrator was the defendant. A verdict was- returned for the plaintiff. Din F ages A23 Is. lOd. Hunter and Mason v. Rees Jones.-In his case, which was an action of assumpait, forthe e balance of an account, a verdict by consent, for £421 12s', was -returned for the plaintil 1 The Court then adjourned.