* A degree absolute in the divorce case of Hartley v. Hartley was granted by the Chief Justice on Tuesday, on the application of Mr T. W. Young, who appeared for the petitioner. His Honor the Chief Justice and a jury of 12, of which Mr W. Grill was foreman, •were occupied on Monday in hearing the case of Eva Blanche Donnelly v. Frederick James Pinny, claim =£sol damages for the •wrongful seizure of a piano. Mr J. P. Campbell appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Skerrett for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that on June 531, 1890, the defendant sold to the plaintiff u piano for =£sß, including interest and in surance, payable by instalments of £2 per month; that on or about December 21, 1890, the defendant fraudulently induced the plaintiff to execute a bailment, which did not set out the true contract between plaintiff and defendant; that plaintiff paid the sum of .£SB before May 23, 1894, and that on that day the defendant by his servants wrongfully took possession of and carried away the piano, and had since held possession of it. She therefore claimed the return of the money paid and damages .£5Ol. The defendant in reply declared that the plaintiff signed the bail ment in consequence of the first agreement not having been registered, and that it set out the true contract between them. The contract was really made with plaintiff’s mother, but at her request the plaintiff’s name was inserted in the agreement. The greater part of the instalments were paid by plaintiff’s father and mother, and that many payments were in arrear, and that defendant, as he had power to do under the agreement, seized the piano. The jury retired at 9.50 p.m., and re turned at 10.15, when the foreman asked whether it was within their power to return a three-fourths verdict. Mr Skerrett said the parties were prepared to take a three-fourths verdict, and His Honor accordingly directed them they could • bring in such a verdict if they liked. 