From Western Post & Mudgee Newspaper Wednesday, October 9, 1861 Pre-Emptive Purchase Approved Bligh District J M ALLISON, Oakey Creek Run, 320 acres, £320, deed fee £1 10s. 24th September, 1861 DISTRICT COURT WILTON v. CANN This was an action for the value of three promissory notes. Mr. HOLROYD, instructed by Mr. TEMPLETON, for plaintiff. Mr. BRODRIBB for defendant. W. WILTON proved the hand-writing of defendant. Mr. BRODRIBB, on behalf of defendant, said first, that he had received no consideration; secondly, that he had paid the amount, but being an ignorant man, had neglected to demand the bills at the time of payment. Verdict for plaintiff. WILTON v. HUME This was an action for money due for cartage of timber. Mr. BRODRIBB applied, on behalf of defendant, to have the case postponed till next sitting, upon payment of cost. Mr. HOLROYD objected. His Honor ordered the case to be proceeded with. W. WILTON said he had a team of bullocks, which originally belonged to a man of the name of LUCK, and which he took as security for a debt owing to him by LUCK. He had all the bullocks branded W, and had his name painted upon the drays. LUCK, who was a sawyer, continued to use the team for the purpose of drawing in his timber, but he (witness) received all money paid on account of cartage. LUCK took an order from HUME to cut a certain quantity of timber; upon his bringing in a load he demanded the cartage of HUME, who said he would see him paid. For the defence, Mr. BRODRIBB called __HUME, who said he had agreed with LUCK for timber at a certain rate, including carriage, and that he had paid him in full. He did not employ WILTON to draw the timber, and when WILTON spoke to him he said he had nothing to do with him. Had never agreed with WILTON for the carriage; he did not swear he had at the trial with LUCK. W. LUCK said he had never parted with the team; that he had delivered timber to several parties, and always received the money; he had engaged to deliver timber to HUMER at 25s, which was to include carriage. He had given WILTON a bill of sale upon the team, which he had since paid. He paid the driver. The team was never out of is possession. Some documentary evidence was here put in. H. TEBBUTT produced WILTON's books (which were in his possession under an order from the Commissioner of Insolvent Court), for the purchase of proving certain transactions between the parties. Mr. BRODRIBB recalled plaintiff, who said LUCK owed him £280. He had not sold the mortgaged team to LUCK, nor had he parted with the teams at the time in question. RUSSELL the driver was in his service; he paid the wages. He afterwards sold part of the team to Mr. M'CAULY. E. CLARKE said he was present during an action between LUCK and HUME, on which occasion HUME stated that WILTON came down and stopped the team, as he would not allow the timber to be taken off before the carriage was paid. HUME produced a receipt at the time as having paid in full all claims between them. His Honor said it was very evident that both HUMER and LUCK had sworn what was not true; the documents they had put in were contrary to their own evidence; it was not his place to proceed against them; they had, however, both sworn what would convict them were a case of perjury preferred against them. His Honor then stated the case to the jury, pointing out the fact that WILTON still held a bill of sale against LUCK, and that HUME's documents went against his own evidence, and confirmed the evidence of the plaintiff. Verdict £47 10s 8d and costs. ***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