Coolahan v. Low & Motion, June 1852 🌍

This celebrated court case took place in 1852, and provides a lot of insight into the milling scene in Auckland at that time.

Hugh Coolahan, a baker, was sueing the millers, Low and Motion, for damages that Coolaham said resulted because the millers delivered him poor quality flour when they ground wheat for him, and so the bread he made from it was so poor that Coolaham lost money on a government supply contract. The evidence presented exposed Low and Motion's practice of keeping back a proportion of the flour when they ground wheat for third parties, and for bulking up what was returned by adding back essentially waste materials. The jury found the defendants guilty, but having been effectively guided by the judge, assessed the damages at the value of the missing flour, and disregarded the consequential loss that occurred in the bakers government contract.

Whilst the case was still continuing, a quick note was printed about the first day's proceedings, which then launched into a rather longer discussion of the state of the courtroom: Daily Southern Cross, Volume VIII, Issue 516, 8 June 1852

Supreme Court.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court was engaged throughout the entire day with an action of damages raised by Mr. Hugh Coolahan against Messrs. Low and Motion, for injury said to have been sustained by the former by false returns of flour ground and delivered from the mill of the latter.

The evidence for the plaintiff, — through the ingenuity of Counsel learned in the law, and who managed to settle seemingly quite as much of their special pleadings in Court as in Chambers — terminated only with the close of day, the evidence for the defence having been deferred until this morning.

Law, in its present state, seems to us — as Mr. Counsellor Bartley might be apt, most felicitously, to allege, — like poor Roderigo, not a hound to follow in the chase, but orfe that is turned from the game in view, by the ridiculous scent of precedent and practice — construction and misconstruction. — As, for instance; after an hour or two of forensic rhetoric, touching the existence or non-existence, the admission or nonadmission, of a contract — the difficulty was solved by the contract itself being laid upon the table !

It is too bad to pen up a Judge, Jury, and Bar in such a wretched Barn as our present Court House. One would almost suppose that Law was playing into the hands of Physic, when it consents to expose so many of her Majesty's lieges for so many weary hours to cold, if not black, draughts, penetrating through- every crevice, and at more than one broken pane. We say nothing of j the floor strewed with hay; that may possibly be quite appropriate in a land where the colonists are accustomed to be treated like beasts of burthen. But surely, from a revenue from which so many thousands are annually squandered, a shilling or two might be cribbed to repair the glaze ?

On the case's conclusion, short reports were published in New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 642, 9 June 1852

Supreme Court. — Coolahan v. Low & Motion. — This was an action brought by Mr. Hugh Coolahan, baker, against Messrs. Low & Motion millers, to recover damages (laid at £300), on account of alleged nondelivery and wrong delivery of the produce of wheat sent by the plaintiff to be ground by the defendants. The trial, which was commenced on Monday morning, before his Honor the Chief Justice and a Special Jury, terminated only yesterday evening, when, after five hours' deliberation, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. The Attorney-General and Mr. Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff; Messrs. Bartley, Abraham, and Marston, for the defendants. We shall give a full report of the trial in our next.

SUPREME COURT.
Coolahan v. Low and Motion. — This very important trial was brought to a close at a late hour on Tuesday evening, the Jury, after between five and six hours of anxious deliberation returning a verdict for the plaintiff, damages 40s. The details of this trial are much too voluminous and important to be loosely or hastily dealt with ; we are therefore, in the present crowded state of our columns, compelled to defer our Report until our next.

The promissed full report on the court proceedings was printed in both New Zealander, Volume 8, Issue 643, 12 June 1852 and Daily Southern Cross, Volume VIII, Issue 518, 15 June 1852. The bulk of the reports is identical - though I have assumed where individual words differ that the later report is probably the more accurate, having allowed more time for proof reading.

SUPREME COURT. - Civil Side.
Monday, June 7, 1852.
Coolahan v. Low & Motion.

This was the only case for trial, and his Honor the Chief Justice having taken his seat at 10 o'clock, the following Special Jury was sworn: -
Messrs. A. Kennedy, (foreman) J. C. Blackett, W. Brown, J. B. Bennett, D. Burn, F. E. Campbell, W. C. Daldy, J. Hargreaves, W. Mason, W. Powditch, T. Paton and J. Salmon.

This was an action brought to recover the sum of £300 as damages for the loss sustained by the plaintiff, by reason of the non delivery by defendants of a certain quantity of fine flour, viz.: 8000 lbs. or thereabouts, the property of the plaintiff, being part of the produce of certain wheat contracted to be ground by defendants on plaintiff's behalf, and delivered for that purpose by plaintiff to defendants on the 10th July, the 3rd September, and the 22nd December, 1851, and the 21st February, and the 28th March, 1852, or about those times respectively. And the plaintiff says, that in substitution for the said flour not delivered as aforesaid, the defendants permitted certain quantities of bran, pollard, and sharps to remain amongst the fine flour, the produce of the said wheat, delivering other bran, pollard and sharps to the plaintiff, in lieu of the said 8000lbs. so kept back as aforesaid, whereby the said flour was so deteriorated in quality that the bread made thereof was condemned by a board of survey, and the plaintiff was deprived of the contract he had entered into with the Commissariat officer, Auckland, for the supply of bread for that department for one year from the 1st April last. By reason of which non-delivery and wrongful delivery aforesaid, the plaintiff hath sustained damage to the amount of £300.

The defendants, for plea to the plaintiff's declaration, aver that they have fully delivered to the plaintiff the quantity of fine flour, bran, pollard and sharps, the produce of the several parcels of wheat delivered to them for grinding. The defendants also deny that any substitution took place; that any bran, pollard, or sharps were permitted to remain amongst the fine flour, as alleged; that any deterioration in quality took place therefrom and that the plaintiff did suffer any loss by any contract in consequence thereof.

The Attorney General and Mr. Whitaker appeared for the plaintiff; and Messrs. Bartley, Abraham, and Marsten for the defendants.

The Attorney General opened the proceedings by stating the circumstances out of which the action arose, and proceeded to call evidence to establish the plaintiff's declaration.

C. A. Harris, being sworn, proved an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants for grinding wheat belonging to him at their mill; and a subsequent agreement made between them, to afford mutual convenience in carrying out the terms of the first agreement. He witnessed both agreements.

George Ashby, being sworn, stated - He is a miller, and has had thirty-four years experience in the business; wheat is ground into flour, sharps, pollard and bran, it may be ground into flour of fine or coarse quality - the quantity produced from a bushel of wheat depends on the quality of the wheat, and the practicability of the miller; the usual quantity taken is from 40 to 46 lbs. to the bushel; the difference in colour of flour of those proportions is perceptible. (Produced samples to illustrate this.) He had been some time, one year, eleven months, and one day, in the employ of the defendants at their mill near Auckland; he was engaged at Sydney, in 1850, by Shepperd and Alger, the defendants' agents there; the defendants he believed were millers and flour dealers, and grind for the public; when wheat was received at the mill it was weighed, and allowed to stand aside until its turn came to be ground; when ground, it was weighed again, and taken away by the owners, or sent home to them - but it was not customary at the defendants mill in all cases to return the whole of the flour produced - such had not happened in any case during his time at the mill; it was a general rule, made by his employers, that when wheat was ground for another, a portion of the flour should be kept back; witness's instructions were, in all cases but in the plaintiff's, to give no more than 40lbs. to the bushel - and if the wheat produced 45lbs. to the bushel, still the customer only got 40lbs.; there had been in the course of last year, some wheat ground for the plaintiff at the mill, when the instructions given to witness by Mr. Motion was to give Mr. Coolahan 42lbs. of fine flour to the bushel; the plaintiff's wheat produced 45lbs. to the bushel; the first parcel of the plaintiffs wheat consisting of 398 bushels, was received at the mill in July last, - that parcel was ground in such a manner as to produce 45lbs.; the whole produce of it was 18,280lbs. fine flour, 1320lbs. sharps, 998lbs. pollard, and 2884lbs. bran; that was the grist in the first case — and the quantities of it returned to the plaintiff were 16,650lbs. fine flour, 1800lbs. sharps, 1370lbs. pollard, 3340 lbs. bran, waste 600lbs.; the whole produce of fine flour was not returned to the plaintiff — eight 200lbs. bags, and about 30lbs. over, were kept back by the direction of Motion, and the weight was made up with bran, pollard and sharps, belonging to the defendants ; the bags kept back were stacked at the back door of the mill, and remained there until the defendants boat came up, when they were put on board along with flour of their own; Motion and George Wood put the bags on board the boat ; the second parcel of the plaintiffs wheat came to the mill about the 3rd Sept , consisting of 137 1/2 bushels ; it was ground so as to produce 45lbs. and thrown off, and lay on the floor until the third lot arrived.

Mr, Bartley interposed to ask the witness what documents he was reading from ?

Witness said the memoranda in his hand had been copied by him from pencil notes of the quantities made at the time of receiving or delivering the wheat.

Mr. Bartley objected to the witness giving evidence from documents that were not made at the time of the transaction.

By the Court - The documents in witness's hand were copied from the pencil memoranda on the night of receiving the wheat.

By the Foreman of the Jury — When the grist was finished, witness made a note of the quantities produced, as well as when the wheat was received, — and the documents he was using to refresh his memory were correct copies of his pencil memoranda.

The Court decided that, as the documents were the current memoranda kept by the witness during the progress of the work, he might use them in giving his evidence.

The Attorney General resumed — Witness received another parcel of wheat from Coolahan in December, consisting of 357 1/2 bushels, which he ground so as to produce 45lbs. per bushel — the whole of the produce of fine flour of the former lot, and of this one was not returned to Coolahan ; witness believed that of the two lots there were kept back ten 200lbs. bags; he himself sold 200lbs. of this flour to Mr. Cochrane, and 100lbs. to Mr. Clark, on account of Low and Motion, and the remainder was taken on board their boat to be carried to their store in town ; the full weight, allowing for waste, was sent to Coolahan, but it was made up of bran, pollard, and sharps, taken from Low and Motion's heap in the mill ; in February, there were two loads received at the mill from Mr. Coolahan ; the first load contained 15,024lbs — the second, 15,388lbs.; this was ground to produce about 44 or 45lbs ; the whole was not sent back to the plaintiff — seven large bags and one small one were kept back, containing 1500lbs.,and the deficiency made up of bran, pollard and sharps, belonging to Low and Motion ; the flour kept back was put on board the defendants boat.

By the Foreman — Witness could not tell where it was taken to.

By the Attorney-General — The February lot was the last lot he had received from Mr. Coolahan. On being asked if he remembered any coming to the mill from Mr. Coolahan in March, Mr. Bartley objected to the manner of putting the question. It was directly leading the witness : he had stated already that he had not received any wheat from the plaintiff after February, and now the question was put if he did not receive any in March.

His Honor remarked that the fact of something having been received in March was admitted on the record — and it was fair enough to ask the witness if he knew anything of it.

The Attorney-General said as Mr. Bartley had objected to the question, he would not press it, but put another.

Examination resumed — Witness was in the. employ of the defendants from July to April last, during which time he had the management of the mill; he had received various parcels of wheat to grind for plaintiff, and on no one of these occasions did the produce of these parcels go back to the plaintiff.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bartley — Had 34 years' experience as a miller, and had now got to be a master miller, having rented a mill from the plaintiff; has had a quarrel with Low and Motion [Mr. Bartley here put in several documents, on which he wished to ground questions that he intended to put to the witness]; would not swear that the document now shown to him was in his own handwriting — afterwards he admitted it; others he also admitted; admitted an advertisement in the newspapers to be his. (This advertisement announced that the witness had commenced business as a miller, and stated that the public would get back the whole of the produce of wheat sent to him to be ground), the word whole had reference to everybody that should bring grist to his mill; would not swear that it had no reference to the defendants; is a tenant of the plaintiff's; is on very good terms with him, and has given him various pieces of information in this cause ; from the treatment received at the hands of the defendants, he could not say he was exactly on as good terms with them as with the plaintiff; was not hostile to them, nor does he bear them any malice ; he had a quarrel with Mr. Motion, and they had smart words; does not mean to make him smart for that now ; had no recollection of having said that, before he had done with Motion, he would find him (witness) a "pure lad;" did not recollect ever saying so to George Wood ; witness might have said so ; Wood was in the employ of defendants; witness had endeavoured to get him into his employ, and had offered him £20 a-year if he would leave defendants and go to him ; would not swear that he had used any threats to the boy in relation to the present action ; witness might have made an offer to go snacks with defendants in the flour that was kept back ; he believed he had urged a claim on them for share of flour kept back from customers.

The following is the substance of Ashbys admitted letters, handed in by the defendants' counsel, and read by the Registrar. These documents were put in evidence chiefly to show the animus of this witness towards the defendants.

12th December, 1851.
Mr. Motion, — Your conversation between me and yourself respecting my wife, I cannot forget ; the dishonour and reflections you cast upon my family I dare you to prove.
I cannot for one moment think that you wish to do me any harm ; but still, your conduct to-day was not becoming either employer or gentleman. I speak to you in mild terms. I wish not to disturb your temper ; but you must remember that I have my own feelings ; however degrading my family may appear in your tight, still they are mine. I am aware that there is ill feeling between us, and has been some time, but I cannot tell when or how it originated. You, no doubt, is the best judge about that.
Respecting my own conduct, I cannot say that I have been very honest. You must be aware that I have been made the tool and instrument to rob the public, all for your interest, on several different times.
You can use this mite as you think proper - and you can settle with me to-morrow.
(This letter bore no signature.)

6th April, 1852.
(Letter to Messrs. Low & Motion.)
Gentlemen, — This is a rough list of the quantity of fine flour I hare been made the tool to rob the public of since I have been in your employ, and half of the amount of which I consider I am entitled to at a matter of right :—
From June, 1850 : Kelly, 140lbs.; his neighbour, 40 ; five Natives, 6 bags meal, 300 ; Lorrigan, 94 ; Carruth, 1 10 ; tix Natives from the Bishop's (five bags meal), 250 ; Carrutb, 65.— July, 1851 i Coo. lahan, 1625 ; Missionaries, Bay of Islands, 600 ; Lorrigan, 120 { Williams, 196.— March, 1852 : Coolahan, 1800 ; ditto, 1500 ; Carruth, 122. — April; Coolahan, meal and flour in mill, 2500 ; Carruth, in mill, 118 lbs.— Total 10,800 lbs.
The number of 50 small parcels I have not named.
These was all made up with pigs' meat by me ; and others.
(This letter was not signed, and the witness hesitated for a length of time before he admitted it to be his writing.)

Auckland, 10th April.
Mr. Motion,— On the 7th of this month, you ordered me out of the mill, and called me a d----d scoundrel, at the same time saying you knew nothing about Mr. Coolahan's flour. Since your memory is so bad, I must beg to remind you of it. On the 14th of July you will find the first delivery of Coolahan's flour ; you cannot forget. You must remember that you assisted to load the boat with the two boys, my son and George ; you must also remember that I took eight bags of fine flour and 50lbs by your orders, of which I hold your document, in your own handwriting, the quantity of flour, pollard, bran, and sharps I was to give him, which was 42lbs. per bushel. You also assisted in taking your turn in wheeling these 1600 lbs. of Mr. Coolaban's fine flour into your own boat, with the boys, as stated above. Moreover, you directed me to mark the bags with a black cross, as you took them to the boat, so tbat they might be distinguished from your own, as they were not quite as good as your own, and was sent by the boatman to your stores. The boatman you employed at that time remembers the circumstance quite well, so it is useless for you to say you know nothing about it. This is only one item I have picked, to show you what I mean to do. You may, well have fine horses and fine side-saddles, while you can rob your neighbour, that places confidence in you, of £25 worth of fine flour out of the grist. The flour at that date was £30 per ton.
Now, this is a true statement. I can swear to the truth of this, and so will my son and George Wood. Those boys assisted me to weigh the sharps, bran, and pollard, to make up the 1650 lbs. of fine flour taken out ; but this is not one-tenth part of what I have been made the tool to rob the public for you and your tribe. But now your game is stopped. You have now in the mill fourteen bags of meal, three bags of flour and pieces, stolen poperty, belonging to Mr. Coolahan, and which he will send the police for on Monday. Mr. Carruth has also 118 lbs. of fine flour on the same loft, which was taken out of his grist by your orders. George Wood and Willian Ashby took the fine flour out and put 106 lbs. of sharps and pollard in the place. Likewise the last grist Carruth had, you had 122 lbs. of his fine flour out of his grist; it went to the stores with the rest. You remember the note I sent you on the 14th December last : if the contents of that note was not true, why not prosecute me ? But you know it was the whole truth, and the truth will stand for ever.
You had better bring this note to the Police Office, on Thursday, together with the note I sent you in December last; but no matter, I have copies of them both. I am going to write to the missionaries of the Bay of Islands, on the part of the Natives. I will prosecute you to the last item.
The Bishop, Mr. Williams, Mr. Carruth, Mr. Lorrigan, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Clark, Mr. Hamlen, and about 50 others ; I will have them all here — I can swear to their all being robbed.
P.S, — Should I get nothing by it, I shall still have the thanks of the public. Ashby.

Mechanics' Bay Mills, May 18.
(Letter addressed to Messrs. Low & Motion.)
Gentlemen,— Did the spy you sent to my mill get you the information you required respecting my character—whether I was a convict fellow, or not ? — You should have sent a more trustworthy man, for he not only told his errand, but likewise those that employed him.
Gentlemen, your undermining dealing with respect to me will have no avail in the case shortly to be brought before the Court. I am surprised to hear, in my own house, the conduct you are pursuing against me. You cannot but be aware, that I am acquainted with all your proceedings and all your ungentlemanly actions that you are doing to degrade me in the eyes of the public. For why should you do so? If the evidence that will be given is not the truth, am I not punishable by law ? You, Mr. Low, told one person that if it was not for the sake of my family, and petitions from parties that persuaded you not to do so, you would have me in the body of the Gaol long before his. You told another party that, had I any money, you would ruin me, but that it was no use in throwing good money away for bad.
Now, gentlemen, what do you mean by all this ? You cannot deny that your conduct towards me is anything like gentlemen, or men of standing in society, as you are. For why do you wish to prevent m« from getting an honest living ? Have not I family to provide for as well as you ? Is there not room enough for us all to live ? Forbear your slander, and let me alone. Through the whole of this transaction you have found me as manageable and as tractable as a child ; but beware ! I am more than a man when I am imposed upon beyond what human infirmity can bear.
As to Mr. Motion, I shall say but little. He cannot have forgotten the six natives bringing 110 bushels of wheat to be ground, which I weighed and ground ; they said that the wheat was weighed by the Bishop. Mr. Motion cannot but be aware that when the flour was dressed, that he took from the said grist seven bags of meal, on the top loft, and put in the place thereof four bags of sharps and pollard. — He cannot deny it. Mr. Motion is also aware that he would not allow me to weigh the said |grist off, but gave what he liked.
I could say a great deal more, but this ought to be enough— so let me alone. I bear you no malice nor hatred in my heart ; all that I want is a living.
Respecting the information you require as to whether I am a convict or not, I refer you to Her Majesty's Attorney-General, where you will get all the information you may require.
I am, gentlemen, your obt. svt., C. Ashby

Mr. Bartley resumed. — Witness gave information to Coolahan, and in consequence of his doing so, this action was commenced ; witness feared that his heart was not quite free from guilt ; he gave the information on account of the quarrel he had with defendants; he had the mill he now rented from Coolahan in view long ago; he did once want to borrow flour from the defendants—the loan of a ton or two might have made him as "tractable and manageable as a child;" it would not have influenced him in his evidence before the Court ; forty bags of the plaintiff's wheat underwent a process of washing at the mill because it was smutty, and there was a great deal of waste upon it; it was weighed after it was washed, dried, and smutted; washing does not benefit wheat, but this wheat was good, notwithstanding ; the last two grists that he received at the mill from the plaintiff were very weavelly - it had been a middling sample of wheat before the weavel got into it ; he received a note from Coolahan's clerk requesting the wheat to be kept separate on account of one portion not being so good aa the other; he had sued the defendants at the Resident Magistrate's Court for wages, when the case was dismissed.

A book was handed to the witness, which, he said, was one he had kept at the mill, and that it contained correct entries of receipts and deliveries. The items of receipts and deliveries on account of the plaintiff were read by Mr. Abraham, and were found to correspond with the weights already sworn to in detail by Ashby, except in one trifling difference. During the course of the cross-examination the witness handed in a paper, which he had discovered in his pocket, with the weights of the produce of plaintiff's first parcel on it, as handed to him by the defendant Motion.

By the Attorney-General : Witness believed the figures he pointed to were in the handwriting of Motion; they related to the produce of the first grist sent to the mill by the plaintiff, and to the best of his belief they were correct. The figures were read, and stood as follows : flour, 18,280 lbs. ; bran, 2,884 lbs. ; pollard, 998 lbs. ; sharps, 1,320 lbs.

By the Court : The figures at the top of the page were in witness's handwriting in pencil; he gave it to Motion on the day that the first grist was ground, who took it home with him that night, and returned it to witness the next morning, with the figures corrected as read ; witness could not swear that the figures were in Motion's handwriting — they might be his wife's ; Motion had as good an opportunity of knowing the produce as witness had

By the Attorney-General: Whoever wrote down the figures, they were given to witness by Motion as the correct amount of the produce.

By a Juror : It had not been the custom at the mill to keep a record of the actual produce — an account was only kept of the quantities received and delivered; witness had kept the account in this particular instance, because he never before knew of such proceedings as were carried on at this mill; he had not made it a general rule to keep notes of the produce and quantities kept back in all instances ; he did not take so much notice of small quantities sent to be ground as he did of the large that had to be made up out of his employer's pollard and bran ; the other cases that he had mentioned in his letter to the defendants where flour had been kept back, had only been put down by him at a rough guess

William Ashby sworn — Was son of the last witness ; had been employed at the mill, and resided there with his father; remembered the first lot of Mr. Coolahan's wheat that was received to be ground; saw it ground and dressed; was aware that the whole of the produce of fine flour had not been returned to Mr. Coolahan ; the deficiency in weight was made up out of Messrs. Low and Motion's bran and pollard; the second lot was received in September, and was ground and dressed the same as the former ; part of the flour of this lot was sent to Mr. Coolahan, and part of it to Messrs. Low and Motion's store ; there were seven bags of 200 lbs. each, and one small one of 100 lbs. taken to the boat by George Wood, to be carried to Low and Motion's store in town ; the next parcel received was ground and dressed; it was meal and five bits of bags of flour that was left behind of that lot ; the rest was sent to Mr. Coolahan; what was kept back was in the mill when witness and his father and family came away ; the difference in weight in the several instances was made up with bran, pollard, and sharps belonging to Messrs. Low and Motion.

By Mr. Abraham : Witness had knowledge of the transaction, because he saw it done ; his father never held any conversation with him on the matter since they left the mill — all that passed between them on the subject of the trial was just before he came into court, when his father desired him to tell the truth ; he was not in bed at the time when the difference in weight was made up; the quarrel between his father and Low and Motion about stolen eggs originated with his brother, and not with him ; some of the last wheat sent by Mr. Coolahan to be ground was weavelly; the scales were opposite the dressing machine ; the bags filled with fine flour, to be sent to Coolahan were put on the scale and weigled — the other bags were put away by the side of the back-door of the mill.

Charles Oakford, sworn — Is a miller, and works for Mr. Partington, at the windmill ; about two-and-a-half years ago he was employed at Low and Motion's mill, where he wrought about five months; wheat, on being ground, is divided into bran, pollard, sharps and fine flour; 44 lbs. of fine flour could be produced, by a good steady power, out of New Zealand wheat; during the time he was employed at the defendants' mill, there had been no wheat ground for bakers, but for natives a good deal had been ground ; the whole of the produce of flour was not returned ; the quantity kept back was 3 cwt out of 20 bushels, and 3 cwt. of sharps put in instead; that was as near as he could guess — he did not weigh it; he left the employ because he refused to grind bad wheat ; the defendants had then refused to pay him the wages that was due to him ; that was nearly two years and a half ago ; his wages were kept from him until a short time ago, when the defendants paid him £5.

By Mr. Bartley : The defendants received one shilling a bushel from the natives for grinding: they were not to be paid in kind — he saw the natives pay the money down before the wheat was ground ; he never told anything of this before — nor would he have done so now, had he not been brought before the Court; he would rob for his master if he was ordered to do so; he had been a convict ; he got five years for cloaking his master's faults ; was never convicted but once ; never knew Ashby in the other colonies, nor never saw him till he was summoned on this trial ; he knew nothing of the matters relating to the present cause.

James Nelson, sworn — Is a labourer, in the employ of Mr. Grahame ; he was about twelve months in the employment of the defendants, and it was about a year and five months since he left them ; while he was at their mill, they ground for others as well as for themselves ; the practice at the mill, while he was there, was to return to the customer 40 lbs. of flour to the bushel of wheat.

The Attorney-General asked the witness — Was it usual for them to give up the whole of the produce to their customers ?

Mr. Bartley objected to the admission of evidence on matters not specifically alleged against the defendants in the declaration.

Mr. Abraham also argued against the admission of such evidence as this — it had nothing to do with the specific issue in trial; such a proceeding was contrary to the practice of Courts of Justice at home ; it was utterly irrelevant, and ought not to be allowed.

His Honor thought that it would not be proper to go into particular cases, but the enquiry as to the general practice at the mill was a very fair one : the defendants might perhaps prove to the jury that such practice was customary in the business.

Examination resumed : The practice was to give 40lbs. to the bushel ; witness could not say whether the wheat produced 40lbs. or otherwise — all he knew was, that 40lbs. of flour were given to the bushel.

By Mr. Abraham : If one customer's wheat produced 38lbs. and another 40lbs. ; and all got 40lbs. alike, witness thought that some of them would get more than their own.

W. F. Porter, sworn, stated that he is a settler on the Tamaki, and a grower of wheat ; that he had sent some wheat to be ground at Low and Motion's mill about four years ago — but had not sent any more since then ; he had sent at that time some uncommonly fine wheat, in parcels of 30 to 40 bushels, in his own boat; the produce of flour he got back of the small parcels was from 38lbs. to 41lbs. per bushel

Mr. Bartley objected to the evidence, as being of the nature His Honor had said should not be received.

The Court ruled accordingly, and the witness withdrew from the box.

John Tomes, D.A.C.G., sworn, stated that he has charge of the provision department in the Commissariat at Auckland ; in April last, Mr. Coolahan began to supply the troops with bread ; he saw the bread on the 31st March that was prepared to be furnished on the 1st April ; it did not appear to be such as would pass if offered, and it was not presented for acceptance ; bread was offered by Coolahan on subsequent days for inspection and acceptance ; on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th April the bread supplied passed his personal examination ; it did not continue to give satisfaction; that supplied on the 5th was passed by him, but was afterwards condemned by a Garrison Board.

Mr. Bartley here raised an objection to the admissibility of Mr. Tomes's evidence on the subject of a contract, the existence of which had not been proved before the Court. It was desirable that, as the contract had been mentioned, the document itself should be put in, that the jury might know the terms on which it was taken.

The Attorney-General said there was a contract, which would be produced at the proper time.

Examination resumed: A contract had been entered into between the head of the Commissariat Department and Mr. Coolahan for supply of bread to the troops, and navy in the harbour, for twelve months, commencing the 1st April last, at 1 1/2d- per lb. or 3d. the 2lb. loaf (Mr. Tomes produced the contract documents, which were handed in); bread furnished by the contractor on the 6th and 7th was passed by witness — but that prepared for the 8th was refused by him on the afternoon of the 7th — it was not used by the troops ; witness purchased bread in place of it from another baker ; the loss to the contractor on the bread refused would be 1/2d. per lb., the difference between the contract price and the price paid for the other bread ; about 550lbs. had been condemned up to this time ; on the 8th, the bread was supplied, on Coolahan's account, by Douglas, and was passed by witness ; the loss on the supply of the 8th to the contractor was about £2 8s. ; Mr. Coolahan is still supposed to supply the bread through the agency of another party ; he is a loser by the transaction to the extent of about £52 to the end of the present month.

By Mr. Bartley : Mr. Coolahan has the contract at the present time ; witness considered l 1/2d. per lb. a low price for bread in the present state of the market.

Patrick Broderick, sworn, stated that he was clerk to Mr. Coolahan, and was aware of wheat having been sent, in the early part of the year, to Low and Motion's mill to be ground; on the 31st March last, Mr. Coolahan baked bread for the supply of the troops — the flour used for that bread was ground at the defendants mill; the colour of the bread was dark ; afterwards the flour was mixed with other flour not ground at Low and Motion's mill; he took some of the flour down to Kelly, the baker, to have it tried by him ; there was some of Low and Motion's grinding baked on the 4th April, for delivery to the troops on the 5th, but the bread was condemned.

By Mr. Abraham: Witness kept the plaintiff's books ; he did not himself take the wheat to Low and Motion's mill, nor bring the produce back from it, but he sent it away to the mill and received what was returned ; knew Mr. Coolahan to belong to a committee for the encouragement of a discovery of gold; knew that he had given three months' notice to the Commissariat Department of his intention to give up the contract.

By the Attorney-General : Witness had the management of forwarding the wheat to Low and Motion's mill, and also of receiving the returned produce of it.

David Callaghan : Was a baker for Mr. Coolahan; on the 31st March he baked bread tor delivery to the troops of the best flour that came from Low and Motion's mill ; the bread was very dark and would not be received — after that, the remainder of Low and Motion's flour was mixed with better flour ; the bread, after it was baked, was given to Gallagher for delivery.

F. Gallagher : Was servant to Mr. Coolahan ; his business was to deliver bread to the customers ; he received the bread for the troops from Broderick and Callaghan, and delivered it at the Barracks.

John Kelly, baker, stated that he remembered, early in April, seeing bread with Mr. Tomes that had been baked for the troops ; the bread seemed to have been very well manufactured, in a tradesmanlike manner — if more offal had been taken out of the flour it would have been of a better colour ; that was the only fault he found in it ; a sample of flour had been bronght to him by Coolahan's clerk, which he wished him to bake, to test its quality ; witness took the flour into his bedroom that there might be no chance of mixture, and baked it with is own hands — it produced good bread, but of very dark colour (loaf produced) ; the fair market price of flour, in July last, was £16 for New Zealand and for imported ; he, bought from Low and Motion, in July, at £16 per ton. The witness corrected himself, and said that New Zealand flour, in July last, was £27 per ton.

By Mr. Bartley : South Australian or Hobart Town flour ranks higher than New Zealand, and fetches a higher price in the market.

This closed the case for the plaintiff ; and the Court was adjourned at half past five o'clock, until the next morning, at ten.

Tuesday, June 8
The Court sat at ten o'clock.

Mr. Bartley rose to give an outline of the evidence he intended to produce for the defence. It would be proved that the plaintiff never objected to the flour ground for him by the defendants — that he opened one of the bags, tasted the flour, and made no objection ; that New Zealand wheat would not produce more fine flour than from 4Olbs. to 42lbs. to the bushel ; that weavelly wheat would not produce so much and that if fine flour were mixed with bran, pollard, and sharps, these ingredients would be easily detected, being palpable to feel and sight. This was the nature of the evidence on which he would rely for the defence — and he might also raise the inference of entire satisfaction with the flour delivered to him on the part of the plaintiff from the fact of his settlement of the defendants' accounts for grinding the flour without making any complaint.

Mr. Abraham then called
Charles Uppington, who stated that he was in the employ of Low and Motion in December last; he delivered two dray loads from the mill at the plaintiff's store, about Christmas last; the plaintiff and his clerk were present at the time he delivered the first load ; the plaintiff did not say anything —he opened one of the bags and tasted the flour, but did not say whether it was good or bad; nothing was said to him on the second occasion only to "look sharp and unload it."

John Bycroft, examined by Mr. Bartley, is a miller, at Epsom ; the produce of New Zealand wheat was 40 lbs. to 42lbs. of fine flour to the bushel ; he knew Oakford ; he had been in witness employ ; he never produced more than 40 lbs. of fine flour for witness to his knowledge; good-flour could not be produced from weavel eaten wheat — the reason was that the weavel eats away the flour out of the grain, and leaves little but bran and pollards, and the flour produced from such grain would be dark in colour ; there might be sharps left in wheat, but bran or pollard would be easily discernable — no great quantity of the latter could be blended with it without being readily detected; sharps might be mingled with flour and escape detection ; but bran or pollard would be visible by pressing the flour in the hand ; those who give 45lbs. of flour must leave sharps in it.

By the Attorney-General.— Had been engaged a long time as a miller ; went first to the business in 1834 ; his present mill is a wind-mill ; does not know whether there would be a difference in produce from a water-mill and wind-mill power.

Juror Mr. W. Brown. — He never weighed wheat, to ascertain its exact produce ; when he said from 40 to 42 lbs. was the produce of a bushel of wheat, he meant that quantity as the usually understood produce in flour ; he had not weighed a bushel of wheat before grinding it and the produce of it afterwards, so as to estimate the produce of larger parcels ; the produce was not calculated by estimate, but by an arrangment with customers to return 40 lbs. ; could not tell whether the bushel produced more or less ; he had once made an exact trial of a farmer's wheat, and found it only turned out 38 lbs. ; native-grown wheat, when it is clean, turns out the best flour : the customers' bushel, sent to be ground, is supposed to be 60 lbs.

J M. Simes, baker, resides at Parnell : He could detect the eleventh part of sharps in fine flour by the feel of it, and bran or pollard by sight, and if it contained one eighth, he would be still better able to detect it. If wheat was weavel-eaten, he should think the flour of it would produce dark bread ; bread cannot be made, to profit by it, at l 1/2d., nor yet at 2d. per lb. A contract taken in April last at l 1/2d. would not be a profitable one ; if witness had a contract at that rate, he would not like to keep it for twelve months, but would be glad to get rid of it as soon as he could. He knew nothing about dressing flour.

James Davidson, is clerk to Messrs. Low & Motion, and was present at the settlement of an account between them and the plaintiff; the account was made out by witness, and sent into Mr. Coolahan, who settled it without any dispute or complaint ; the plaintiff had been very often at the store but witness had never heard him make any complaint in any shape whatever ; is not aware of the plaintiff having bought flour lately from the defendants ; they carry on a considerable wholesale business ; witness recollected Ashby coming to the store and asking for the loan of half-a-ton of flour for a week or so ; the defendants were not at the store at the time, but he (witness) refused, on their behalf, to lend the flour.

Thomas Douglas, baker, knew the witness Ashby : had employed him since he as been at the mill in Mechanics' Bay ; had sent him 400 to 600 bushels of good sound wheat to grind : witness has only received but a small quantity of flour from him yet, in consequence of there having been no water lately to work the mill ; Ashby had not told witness what the wheat would yield, but he agreed to return him 42 lbs. to the bushel. Witness had the Commissariat contract last year; he did not think Mr. Coolahan's contract a beneficial one ; it was such a contract as he would not like to keep ; witness had arranged with Mr. Coolahan to complete the contract for him to the end of the term of notice, at one farthing a pound advance on the price at which it was taken, and he would not now keep it longer at that price if he could help it.

By the Attorney-General. — Potatoes are always used in bread ; it cannot be properly made without them ; it is not profitable to use them, as it takes 12 lbs. of potatoes to make as much as one pound of flour, He employed Ashby because he undertook to return him 42 lbs. ; he had never got more than 40 lbs. before.

This closed the evidence.

The Attorney-General addressed the Jury in a closely reasoned speech, commenting upon the evidence of the witnesses, as collectively forming a case against the defendants which warranted him in anticipating a verdict for the plaintiff, which he reminded them would have a salutary effect in guarding the interests of the public from such practices as had been exposed during this trial.

Mr. Bartley, in his address on the other side, dwelt forcibly on the principal witness, Charles Ashby, as being on his own showing, so bad as to render his testimony wholly unworthy of credit. He appealed to the jury whether, on such evidence as this they would entail upon the defendants the ruin of reputation which a verdict against them would not fail to produce. He contended that the plaintiff had voluntarily given up the contract named in the declaration, for reasons with which the defendants had no concern, and that therefore he could not be entitled to any compensation on that ground.

The Attorney-General then addressed the Court as follows :

Although the bearing of this case has trespassed somewhat largely upon your time, I think you will find that, when disembarrassed from irrelevant matter, the points for your consideration are but few and simple. Was the whole of the produce of the plaintiff's wheat returned to him by the defendants ? If not, what quantity was kept back by them ? What was its value ? And did the plaintiff suffer any, and what amount of injury in respect of the contract entered into by him with the Commissariat Department, by reason of the manner in which the wheat was ground and dressed by them ? Such are the points on which the verdict turns. I am not instructed, gentlemen, to charge Messrs. Low and Motion with having knowingly committed an act of deliberate fraud ; and there is no one in this Court who, under any circumstances, would more unwillingly bring such a charge against them. I am willing to believe that whatever may have been done by them, has been done under the belief that it was necessary so to act in order to pay themselves the cost of grinding— or that it was the custom of the trade so to act— or, at all events, that in so acting, they did not do violence to their own sense of right and wrong ;— but, — and I say it with regret, such a chain of corroborative, uncontradicted evidence has been given in support of the plaintiff's case, as can leave no reasonable doubt, on any reasonable mind, that the whole of the produce of the wheat sent to be ground at Low and Motion's mill, was not duly returned by them to the plaintiff Coolahan. Upon this point the evidence of Ashby is clear and distinct. He has told you that, while he was in their service, it was the practice of Low and Motion, as to their customers generally, to return but 40 pounds of flour to the bushel, whatever might be the actual produce of the wheat— that the wheat sent to the mill by Coolahan was so ground and dressed as to produce 45 pounds of flour to the bushel — and that, acting under special instructions from Motion— one of the defendants — be, Ashby, had returned to them but 42 pounds of flour to the bushel, retaining 3 pounds of flour out of the plaintiff's wheat for the use of the defendants ; and, for the purpose of making up the deficiency in the weight, adding to the bran, sharps, and pollard produced from the wheat 3 pounds weight to the bushel of bran, sharps, and pollard out of the stock of the defendant. You have then his evidence, in detail, as to the exact weight of floor actually produced from each parcel of wheat ; and the weight of flour, in each case, returned to the plaintiff — evidence given from written notes taken at the time— notes sworn to be correct - notes which you will your selves shortly have an opportunity of testing by examination and comparison with other accounts, admitted by all parties to be true and correct - notes which show that, on each occasion, the actual produce of the plaintiff's wheat was greater than the weight of flour returned to him. Whatever may be your opinion, gentlemen, of the conduct of the defendants in thus appropriating to their own use a portion of the plaintiff's property, you can have no better opinion of their late servant, the witness Ashby— who, on his own showing, not only lent himself to the transaction, but was willing to have become a sharer in the spoil. It appears, also, that he has had a quarrel with the defendants ; still his evidence, on these accounts, cannot be rejected. If the principle were adopted of rejecting the evidence of all witnesses of indifferent character, there would be no truth in the Proverb, that "When rogues fall out. honest men come by their own." But, unfortunately for the defendants, the case does not rest upon the evidence of Ashby, but has been confirmed curiously and conclusively by the defendant Motion himself ; for the memorandum, in the handwriting of Motion, or furnished by him, as to the produce of the first parcel of wheat, corresponds, to a pound, with the statements made by Ashby, and shows that the quantity of flour actually produced was 18,280 pounds. As, therefore, Low and Motion have admitted that only 16,650 pounds of flour was delivered to Coolahan, it is thus conclusively shown that, on this one parcel alone, nearly 2,000 pounds of flour was kept back. But if any doubt, any lingering doubt, remained upon your minds, it must have been removed by the evidence of Ashby the son— for it will hardly be contended that because the father is a man of indifferent character the son is not to be believed when speaking on his oath; and I appeal to all who heard him, whether his evidence was not so given as to carry a conviction of its truth. What then was the evidence of the younger Ashby? Why that as to the first parcel of wheat, eight bags of the flour were separated from the rest — that instead of being sent, with the rest, to Coolahan the plaintiff, it was stacked in the defendants' mill, and afterwards put into their boat, to go to their store in town. That, on another occasion, the bags of flour were kept back. — the son thus substantially corroborating the testimony given by his father. And again, in order to satisfy you that it was not improbable that the defendants did appropriate a portion of the produce of the plaintiff's wheat, it has been proved that it was their practice to keep back a portion of all grists sent to their mill. The witness Oakford has told you that, while he was in the service of Low and Motion, their principal customers were Natives ; that on no occasion was the whole of the produce of their wheat returned to them ; but that in every instance some portion was retained. And with respect to the witness Oakford, a fact has come out too significant to be overlooked. It appears that it is more than two years since Oakford left the employment of Low and Motion— that a balance of wages was due to him when he left them— that that balance remained unpaid for upwards of two years ; but that within the last four days, and since the present action was commenced, that balance has been paid to him. Such is the fact, and I leave it to yourselves to make the application. The evidence of the witness Nelson is equally important : he, too, has told you that, while he was in the service of the defendants, the produce of grist sent to the mill was neither measured nor weighed ; and that whatever the actual produce might be, only 40 pounds weight of flour to the bushel was returned to the owner. Now I can well believe, gentlemen, that you may be unwilling to arrive at the conclusion to which this evidence all tends : for I need hardly remind you that you are sworn to "Well and truly try the issue joined between the parties, and a true verdict give according"— not to your own hopes and inclinations, but — "according to the evidence ;" and I maintain that, looking to the evidence, you can arrive at no other conclusion, than that the defendants have kept back a portion of the produce of the plaintiff's wheat, without virtually proclaiming your belief, that the plaintiff's case is the result of a foul conspiracy, and that it has been throughout supported by wilful and corrupt perjury. Assuming then, that a portion of the plaintiff's property has been thus appropriated by the defendants, it will then be for you to ascertain the quantity. In general terms, the witness Ashby has told you that all the plaintiff's wheat sent to be ground at the defendants' mill was so ground as to produce 45 pounds of flour to the bushel, and that 42 pounds only were returned to Coolaham, Multiplying the total number of bushels sent to be ground by them will give you the total number of pounds of flour retained by Low and Motion. He has also given you a detailed statement of the produce of each parcel, and of the quantity actually delivered to the plaintiff. By either of these methods, you will readily arrive it the total quantity of flour, the property of the plaintiff, Coolahan, appropriated to their own use, by the defendants, Low and Motion. Its money value is of easy calculation ; the witness Kelly has proved that in July last the price of flour was £26 to £28 a ton, and that in December and January, it was £l6 a ton. And upon this point your own knowledge will lead you to a just conclusion. The only point remaining for your consideration is this — Did Coolahan suffer any and what amount of loss or injury by reason of the manner in which his wheat was ground ? You have it in evidence, that wheat, when properly ground and dressed, will produce but 40lbs. of fine flour — you have it in evidence that the wheat in question was turned out so coarse as to produce 45lbs. to the bushel. The witness Broderick has proved that the flour which came from Low and Motion's mill was used in baking for the contract. The Commissariat officer proved that the bread was rejected, that an immediate and direct loss was thus entailed upon Coolahan. It also appears from the evidence of that officer, that Coolahan could not carry out the contract, with bread made from that flour ; and that he (Coolahan) was obliged to engage another baker to execute the contract for him, at a certain cost to himself : and it also appears in evidence that if the flour had been better dressed, the bread made with it would have been of a better color. And in addition to any immediate loss which the plaintiff may have sustained, in respect of the particular contract in question, it must be obvious that, owing to the indifferent quality of the bread offered by him for the supply of the troops on that occassion, that Coolahan's character, as a contractor, must in some degree, have suffered in the estimation of the Commissariat department. Taken together, the several elements will form the basis on which you will have to calculate the amount of damages to be awarded to the Plaintiff. I trust however, gentlemen, that in determining that amount, you will not consider yourselves acting simply as arbitrators of the point now in issue between the Plaintiff and Defendants, but also as guardians of the public, and that your verdict will be such as henceforward to serve as a warning to millers, and effectually to protect the interests of the public.

Mr. Bartley, in a long and powerful address for the defendants, contended that the great bulk of the evidence did not affect the question in issue. The main evidence, Ashby, was utterly incredible — a diabolical scoundrel (here a rather loud titter was indulged ; in the repressing of which by the Court, Mr. Bartley mistook the meaning of the learned Judge, and said : surely he had a right to term the witness a scoundrel ?

[at this point the newspaper is damaged, and a variable part of the end of each line is missing for a few lines]

— a proposition to which the Judge ...
dissent,) a witness unpreced ...
and actuated by revenge. ...
Ashby's son, who naturally ...
versation with this father on the ...
must at last have believed his father's ...
ment.

[Normality is resumed from this point]

The boy's first statement that never spoke on the subject with his father, was also incredible, but it was no doubt to be attributed to the natural influence of parent over child. Then, again, there was the evidence of Oakford, a convict for perjury — a man audaciously avowing that he would rob for his master. — Yet, he knew nothing whatever of the matter in question ; the alleged occurrence having taken place after he had quitted the service of Low & Motion. Mr. Bartley dwelt upon the non-production by Ashby of the threatened letter or order of Motion to give short weight, although Ashby was required by subpoena, duces tecum, to produce the document. If the allegations set forth in evidence were at all tenable his (Mr. Bartley's) clients should have been placed in the dock of that Court; for if such evidence could be sustained their conduct amounted to a fraud. The Attorney General, however, had not thought proper to indict his clients, and the indignant dismissal of Ashby, and his ejection from the Mill by Motion showed the importance attached by Motion to Ashby's threats. Mr. Bartley commented upon the improbability of Motion's wheeling away and setting apart to his own use flour the produce of Coolahan's wheat, after the first letter and threat of Ashby. The learned council proceeded to animadvert strongly upon the rivalry in trade which might be fairly represented to animate Ashby, the late servant of Motion, who in entering upon the same trade sought to raise himself, and at the same time gratify his revenge by the destruction of his former master. Mr. Bartley then called the attention of the Court and Jury to the unwillingness of Mr. Tomes to make communications as to the value or low rate of the contract, contending that the contract had not been forfeited, but that Coolahan attached no value to it from its low rate, and from his credulity with reference to the alleged discovery of gold. From the remarkable infamy of the testimony by which this charge has been attempted to be supported, — witnesses of avowed dishonesty and infamy, — one of them a convict for perjury, or some crime for which he had suffered five years imprisonment — from testimony such as this, I rely with confidence for a verdict for the defendants. It is not, gentlemen of the Jury, said Mr. Bartley in conclusion, for pounds, shillings, and pence that I contend, — it is the character of the defendants. Your verdict must absolve or condemn them. Go where they may, that verdict must follow them I repeat, therefore, that, looking upon such a charge as this, and the infamy of the evidence by which it is sought to be supported, I rely with perfect confidence for a verdict in my clients' favour.

His Honor, in summing up, after referring to Ashby's evidence remarked that, however damaged that evidence might be by the conduct of the witness as shown, out of his own mouth, and by his quarrel with the defendant Motion, yet it deserved to be seriously considered — and especially it was to be considered how far it was corroborated by other evidence. If Ashby came to complain and ask redress, it would be a different question. Here the question was, whether an innocent party had suffered injury. However the wrongful transactions might be detected — however tainted the channel of evidence might be yet it should be borne in mind that the plaintiff was entirely unconnected with those transactions. Next, as to the special damages claimed by the plaintiff, as arising from the wrongful delivery of flour of an inferior quality. Even supposing all the preliminary facts to be established — that inferior flour was delivered — that the inferior quality was owing, not to any unsoundness or defect in the wheat sent by the plaintiff to the mill, but solely to the defendants' fault— that the bread afterwards condemned was made of that very flour— and that the loss of the contract was caused thereby — still it remained to be asked, Whether that loss was the natural necessary result of the defendants' acts ? If not — if, on the contrary, it could be fairly traced to the plaintiff's own acts, he conld not recover anything beyond ordinary damages. If the baker could discern that the best quality of Low and Motion's flour (so the witness Callaghan describes it) was unfit for the purposes of the contract, and yet, with his eyes open, made bread of it, and sent it in, he could not throw on the defendants the consequences of his own acts. He might have gone into the market and purchased good flour of such quality and quantity as he ought to have received from the millers, and have thrown upon them the burthen of that outlay. But supposing the millers to have broken their contract with the baker, the baker was not thereby left at liberty to proceed to break his own contract with the Commisariat and then to throw upon them the consequences of the breach of both those contracts. If there was enough on the whole evidence to satisfy the Jury that the plaintiff's property had been take from him, they would take care to compensate the plaintiff ; but they would be careful not to give him compensation for any loss which might fairly be traced to his own fault.

The Jury retired, and after an absence from the Court of about five hours, returned a verdict for the plaintiff of forty shillings damages.

Hugh Coolahan had been a baker for a good number of years, and was in quite high standing in the community, being in a position where he was bidding for and winning government contacts. He also had been one of the subscribers to establish a lunatic asylum, and to have put up money to reward anyone finding a gold field in New Ulster. It is interesting to note that four of the "special jury" (including the forman) which reached the verdict for Coolahan may in fact have been aquainted with him, since names that match the "A Kennedy", "D Burn", "W Brown" and "J Salmon" of the jury later that month also appear as co-signatures with Hugh Coolahan on a published letter about registration as voters: Daily Southern Cross, Volume VIII, Issue 521, 25 June 1852

WITHOUT INTEREST.
To the Worshipful the Mayor.
WE, the undersigned, believing that many persons from want of information as to what is required of them, may omit to send in their Claims to Registration as Voters for Members of the Provincial Council of New Ulster ; — and feeling at the same time that it is desirable that all those who may wish to exercise the franchise at the first election, now shortly to take place, should be in a position to do so ; — request that you will call a Public Meeting with a view to the adoption of such steps as may insure as far as practicable the due Registration for their Respective districts of all, without reference to political opinions, who possess the requisite qualification.
Frederick Whitaker,
A. Kennedy,
J. Logan Campbell,
Wm. S. Grahame,
Wm. Brown,
John Salmon,
Thomas Henry,
David Nathan,
W. F. Porter,
John B. Bennett,
David Burn,
Richard Ridings,
Thomas S. Forsaith.
Hugh Coolahan.
Auckland, 24th June, 1852.

Auckland, 24th June, 1852.
IN Compliance with the above request, I hereby call a Public Meeting of the Inhabitants of the Borough of Auckland, to be held in the Hall of- the Mechanics' Institute, on Wednesday, the 30th current, at One o'Clock, p.m. Archibald Clark, Mayor. Fred. Whitaker, Esq., &c, &c, &c.

Links

• Wikipedia
• Windmills of New Zealand
• Wind engines of New Zealand
• Mock mills of New Zealand