From Western Post, 6 July 1861: Wednesday, 3rd July Jury Cases SHUTTLEWORTH v CARTER - This was action for £173, for goods sold and delivered. Mr HOLROYD appeared for plaintiff, Mr WINDEYER for defendant. Part of the sum sought being for money advanced on a piece of land sold by CARTER to SHUTTLEWORTH, of which he (CARTER) had not title, it being the property of his son, Mr. WINDEYER raised an objection to that part of the case, as not being within the jurisdiction of the Court - which his Honor allowed. A second point was argued, which resulting in Mr HOLROYD withdrawing the case. NUNAN v RAYNER - This was an action for false imprisonment, damages laid at £200. Mr HOLROYD for plaintiff. Mr WINDEYER for RAYNER. Constable MORAN, on oath, stated that on the 10th of April, the defendant called upon Mr LYONS (then a magistrate) for a warrant to take the plaintiff into custody, for having in his possession a horse supposed to have been stolen; LYONS refused to grant a warrant, on the ground that he did not know the name of the party - (which called fro a remark that he did not know the law) - Mr LYONS told him to go with RAYNDER, and take the man into custody, and that he (Mr LYONS) would be responsible. He then went about a mile and half on the Sydney road, where he saw the plaintiff, who had a horse and cart. RAYNER claimed the horse; the man declined to give it up. He then said you will then have to go with me to Mudgee. RAYNER said I don't want to take the man; all I want is the horse. He (MORAN) said, "I cannot take one without the other". RAY! NER replied "very well", and gave him in charge. He then took him to the lock-up . He certainly went out under LYONS instructions. N. M'BEATH said he received NUNAN in the lock-up on the 10th of April; he was confined 48 hours in a cell with other prisoners; he was afterwards released on bail. W NUNAN the plaintiff, said he was going to Mr SINDEN's house on the Sydney Road, when RAYNOR claimed a horse he had in his cart; he asked him if he had a receipt for it; he replied "yes". He refused to the give the horse up. Some time after he was returning to Mudgee and met RAYNOR and a constable; the latter took him to the Mudgee lock-up. He had changed the horse for a heavy one with a person of the name of CLARK, near Molong. Mr BRODRIBB proved having defended with plaintiff; he had considerable trouble with the case, and had not been paid. His Honor having carefully summed up the case, the jury, after a short consultation, gave a verdict in favour of the defendant. JACKSON v TUCKER - Mr JAMES appearing for plaintiff. Messrs HOLROYD and WINDEYER for defendant. Mr HOLROYD made an application on behalf of Mr TUCKER that the case be postponed to the October sitting, in consequence of his having dislocated his ankle. Affadavits were read from Dr CUTTING, to the effect that the defendant would incur serious risk by attempting to come into Mudgee, and from Mr CLARK, that defendant was a very material witness in the case. Mr JAMES, on the part of the plaintiff, submitted that the affidavits were not sufficient to sustain the application. Mr CLARK's went for nothing. The accident happened to the defendant some seven weeks' since, and that he was so far recovered that he was able to attend to his business, and had actually cut down the carcass of a bullock; he was consequently, well able to come to Mudgee. The delay sought was solely for the purpose of putting his client to more inconvenience by keeping him longer without his money. His H! onor in consideration of the nature of the accident and the state of the road, granted the application. J C WILLIAMS v T HONEYSETT - This was an action for £85 3s 9d for goods sold and delivered. Messrs HOLROYD and WINDEYER, instructed by Mr TEMPLETON, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr JAMES, solicitor, for the defendant. J C WILLIAMS, storekeeper, swore to the correctness of the account, which was for goods supplied, to defendant's family, and regularly entered into a pass book; a demand was made by letter for the amount; defendant called at the store and asked if he had ever disputed the account, and wished to know why the hay had not been taken away. He replied because its condition was not according to agreement. Had given defendant £15 on account of the hay transaction. His agreement was that he should take 7 tons of mixed hay from a stack, and 2 of Lucerne at £8 the ton, the same to be sound and in good condition. It was to be removed a ton at a time, by plaintiff, who was to cut and cart it away. About 9 months after he sent his son for a load, who found it all cu! t and pressed. Not liking the quality he did not send for any more, on account of its bad condition. Could not swear that he had requested either Mr BARRY or Mr WALKER to try and sell this particular hay. There was no agreement that defendant should take out part of the amount in goods. At this point of the case an objection was raised by counsel to the set-off - who contended that it was a cross claim, and could not be sustained as a set-off in the present action; - and that HONEYSETT's only redress was a separate action against WILLIAMS. His honor said, perhaps it was a hard case; had the action been tried in the Supreme Court, the set-off could have been allowed; the rule, however, did not apply to the District Courts; he therefore, ruled that the set-off could not be allowed. Mr JAMES declined going on with the case, and a verdict was given to plaintiff for £57 5s. Thursday, July 4th NUNAN v RAYNOR - At the commencement of the sitting of the court Mr HOLROYD applied for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the evidence. The case before the Magistrate respecting the horse was one of disputed authority; RAYNOR wanted the horse, and could not get it; he consequently gave NUNAN into custody. Mr WINDEYER in addressing the jury had assumed that NUNAN was taken into custody under the authority of Mr LYONS, but there was not evidence to show that he was actually in custody before RAYNOR gave him in charge. In fact, MORAN refused to take action before set in motion by RAYNOR. Mr. WINDEYER argued at great length upon the impropriety of the court setting aside the decision of a jury, especially when that decision was according to evidence, and contended that the constable took the man in custody on the advice of LYONS, who said he would be responsible, and who, no doubt was responsible; the party had their remedy against LYONS. His Honor gran! ted the application for a new trial; the costs to abide the event; remarking that the jury had adopted Mr WINDEYER's construction of the evidence. HEARD v ROBINSON - Mr HOLROYD for plaintiff. Mr WINDEYER for defendant. This was an action for £25, for loss sustained in price on three tons of hay, and damage done to part of a rick through neglect. The evidence in this case was the same as that given in ROBINSON v HEARD. W HEARD provide having purchased a quantity of hay, which ROBINSON was to take proper care of till HEARD carted it away. Four months after the purchase, he (HEARD) hearing that the rick was being eaten by horses, went in company with Messrs STANBURY and COX, to see what loss he had sustained, when he requested that three tons might be sent into Mudgee and he would pay for it as it was delivered. On the following morning he sent a man with a bullock dray, when ROBINSON refused to allow the hay to be touched. Cross-examined by Mr WINDEYER: Could not say how much was damaged; it was very much discoloured. Could not say what COX had valued the damaged it; he thought it was £20. W F STANBURY went with! HEARD to purchase the hay; HEARD not being in a hurry for it, ROBINSON said it could remain, and that it would be as safe as if at home. Went a second time, and found that it had been nibbled away. HEARD gave directions to have three tons sent into Mudgee. The hay was sold cheap in consequence of ROBINSON not being able to cart it. Hay was much dearer when HEARD ordered the three tons to be sent to his house. For the defence - Jessy SMITH, farmer, said he had examined the hay on Wednesday very particularly; there was a portion of it eaten by the cattle; should say from 3 to 4 cwts. The hole was not large enough for a goat to get into he. He pulled some of the hay out; it was perfectly sweet. W COLEMAN had examined and measured the stack with the former witness; 3 or 4 cwts, was the most that could be displaced; the hay was dry, good and sweet. Verdict £4 10s with £3 paid into Court. ***END*** N.B. All care has been taken to transcribe the above accurately, however errors may have been inadvertently made. Spelling of names/places should be as appears in original. Transcribed from microfilm available from the State Library. Annette Piper Coolah NSW