Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

Heley v. Mocatta [1842] NSWSupC 15 Dee v. Farrell

trover - promissory note - work and labour - goods sold and delivered

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Stephen J (and two Assessors), 1 August 1842

Source: Sydney Gazette, 2 August 1842

            This was an action of trover brought to recover the value of a certain quantity of rice, and of the promissory note for £31, which had been entrusted to the defendant as owner of the Transfer, in order to be safely conveyed in that vessel to Cloudy Bay.

            On the part of the plaintiff, it was proved, that the defendant was the owner of the said vessel, that the rice, to the weight of fifteen [?]., three quarters, and eleven pounds, together with the promissory note above alluded to, were safely delivered to the defendant, on board his vessel, in the month of June 1840, and that the vessel was insured at the time she was lost; the assessors, therefore, returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages, £40.

            Dee . v. Farrell - This was an action brought to recover the sum of £916. 10 d, which, by the first count, was alleged to be due for work and labour done, and by the second count, for goods sold and delivered, some small sums being admitted to have been paid at various terms, by the defendant, on account.

            The work for which the amount was claimed was alleged to have been performed at the Royal Hotel, by the plaintiff, under a contract entered into with the defendant.

            On the part of the defendant, however, it was contended, that the plaintiff had never completed his agreement.   In opposition to this plea, evidence was given by the plaintiff, to shew that the delay in the work had been owing to the neglect of the defendant, in not having provided scaffolding, and proved that the defendant had offered £ 20, the plaintiff, to induce him to stay proceedings in this action.

            When the case for the plaintiff was closed, it was contended, on the part of the defendant, that he could not be held as a responsible party, in this action, being merely employed by Mr J. T. Hughes, as overseer of works, in the erection of the Royal Hotel, which statement was fully corroborated by the evidence of Mr Hughes himself, was called for that purpose, and by the testimony of two other witnesses.

            After Mr. Foster had replied at great length, for the plaintiff, his Honor, summed up, and the assessors returned a verdict for the defendant.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University