Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954), Wednesday 12 August 1914, page 5


SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO.

(Before the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Pring,

and Mr. Justice Harvey.)

A THEATRICAL DISPUTE.

Shirley v Willoughby.

Mr. Blacket, K.C., and Mr. Wyndham Davies, instructed by Mr. A. B. Davies, appeared for appellant (defendant) and Mr. Wm. M. Daley, for the plaintiff, in support of the verdict appealed against. The action, which was tried before Mr. Justice Sly and a Jury of four, at the last jury sittings, was brought by Arthur Shirley, actor, against George Willoughby, to recover compensation, under a declaration in which he set out that V, hill he was under engagement to J. C. Williamson, Ltd., the defendant, knowing that the contract with that theatrical firm was in full force and effect, unlawfully induced J. C. Williamson, Ltd., to break the contract.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, with damages £500, and defendant now asked the Court to set aside this finding on a number of grounds.

When the hearing was resumed, the Chief Justice said it appeared to him that the case was one in which the parties might possibly come to an arrangement.

Counsel then consulted together, and it was subsequently announced that the case had been settled on terms filed in Court.

It was therefore struck out.

ACTION TO RECOVER DEPOSIT.

Duncan v Bell.

Mr. Loxton, K.C., and Mr. Boyce, instructed by Mr. E. W. Warren, appeared for appellant

(defendant), and Mr. W. A. Walker and Mr. P. H. Rogers, instructed by Mr. S. J. O'Halloran, of Tamworth (by his agent, Mr. R. H. Levien), for the plaintiff. The action, which was tried before Mr. Justice Sly and a jury of four on June 25 last, was brought by James Duncan, grazier, of Barraba, against Charles F. Moll, to recover a deposit of £100 paid by plaintiff in respect of a purchase by him from the defendant of a settlement lease. Certain objections were taken at the trial as to the admissibility of certain evidence, and his Honor, by consent, formally directed the jury to return a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount claimed, reserving liberty to the defendant to move the Full Court to enter the verdict for him or to grant a nonsuit.

The Court, after hearing argument, said that it became impossible to carry out the contract because of the refusal of the Minister for Lands to consent to the assignment of the settlement lease, and the question was whether that difficulty had been brought about by something for which plaintiff was responsible. Having power under the reference to draw inferences from the facts, the Court had come to the conclusion that on the evidence the plaintiff, by his own act, rendered it impossible to complete the contract, and, therefore, defendant was entitled to retain the deposit. The verdict for plaintiff must be set aside and entered for defendant, with costs of the present, motion.