Some time ago defendant was about to erect some buildings in Pitt-street, and agreed with a person named Punday for their erection.  The latter went to bargain with a man named Wright for a certain quantity of bricks for the building - Wright was an agent, and sold bricks for plaintiff (who was a brick-maker) upon commission, at the rate of one shilling per thousand.  Wright was willing to supply the bricks, but would not take Punday's security.  In consequence of this, when the two first cart loads were sent, Lyons agreed to pay Wright, but to be out of Punday's money.  There was ultimately a balance of £49 due to plaintiff for the bricks so supplied, and for which this action was brought against Lyons.  For the defence it was contended that there was no proof of any connexion between the plaintiff and defendant, and therefore the latter was entitled to a nonsuit.  But the Chief Justice (Forbes) before whom the case was tried, held, that if the assessors were satisfied Free had made the bricks and Wright acted only as his agent, he was entitled to recover.  When the evidence for the defence had been gone through - the Chief Justice in putting the case to the assessors left it to them to say, did Wright make the agreement with Lyons as the agent of Free?  If he did, then the principle was entitled to recover.  The assessors found for the plaintiff, damages £49.

A rule nisi had since been obtained on the part of the defendant, calling upon plaintiff to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.  The chief ground upon which the motion was founded was that of ``surprise," inasmuch as defendant had no idea that it would be set up that Wright was only the agent of Free, and therefore defendant was quite unprepared to contradict the statement.  It was also alledged that Punday and Wright were only holding tickets of leave, had it been otherwise the action would never have been brought.  It was further contended on the part of defendant's counsel, that if Free had been the real party in the action, he could not have sued Punday (he being only a ticket of leave man).

The Chief Justice then observed, that according to a recent Act of Council - all ticket of leave men might be sued, although they had no power of sueing.  After some further discussion by no means publicly interesting, the Court decided that there should be a new trial with payment of costs.