SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume IV, Issue 1127, 3 September 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—This Day.

Sittings ix Banco. (Before his Honor Geo. A. Arncy, Xt, Chief Justice.) HARRIS V. MAC'FAKLANE. Application for rule of attachment. Mr llees appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Hesketli for the defendant. Mr Rees applied for leave to pnt in an affidavit answering the affidavit put in l>y defendant denying that James Young had interfered with plaintiff's servants. Mr Hesketh objected to the affidavit being read. The affidavit on behalf of Young had been filed more than a week, and notice of the fresh affidavit had only been filed the previous day. His Honor said if the affidavit was intended to be'pnt in to show that the former affidavit relied upon other occasion? than those met by the other side it might be admitted ; but that if it was to supplement the formor affidavit it could not bo admitted.

Mr Hesketh maintained that the fresh affidavit came under the latter head.

His Honor decided that the affidavit could not be admitted.

Mr Hesketh then proceeded to show cause why a rule of attachment should not issue against James Young, the manager, for defondant. Tho rule nisi had been obtained upon the affidavits of James Wright and another, whicli set forth four acts of contempt dono by the said James Young. These were—

First : That he trespassed upon the land at Hikutawatawa, on the 9th August.

Secondly : That on the same day he interfered with tho plaintiffs workmen, and threatened thorn.

Thirdly : That in addition to trespissiug on tbo said land the fsaid TTamos Young worked upon the land by getting logs from the bod of the creek.

Fourthly : That on several occasions since the 25th June last he had caused tho creek to be dammed up, and then to flow down swiftly. The learned counsel then answered each clause in detail. He contended that the disputed state of tho boundary of the canal left it an open quoswon whether tho whole of it was on the plaintiffs land, and read an affidayit of Janiea Young that he had not dammed the creek, and that he had only removed logs which were mutually regarded as an obstruction by (both plaintiffs and defendant's servants. There was no intention to violate the injunction of the Court. Hiß Honor said that it might be taken for granted that if no intent waa evidenced the injunction could not be be said to have been infringed. Mr Rees replied at some length, after which his Honor decided that an infringement of the injunction had been committed by Young, and directed the rule of attaohment to be made absolute. v .

Re 3. C. BBOWK, DECEASED. This waj an application for probate against whioh a caveat had been entered by Mr Samuel Brown. ; Mr Hesketh now said that the caveat was withdrawn, and his Honor granted probate. Mr MacCormick appeared on behalf of the executors. Be ALEX. M'DONALD, A BANKRUPT. This was an application by Mr Heaketh for the release of the bankrupt from gaol. Prom the statement of the case it appeared that the judgment upou which the bankrupt had been committed was obtained prior to his bankruptcy, and that Mr Slater, at whose suit the judgment was siren, had proved with the other creditors. Mr McCormick opposed the application. His Honor held that Mr Slater had forfeited his right to issue execution by proving with the creditors, and also that tho withholding of bankrupt's discbarge did not take away protection. Order for release granted. il ' ! [Left aitting.] ■; r