SUPREME COURT—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 15, 18 January 1889, Page 4

SUPREME COURT—THIS DAY.

IN CHAMBERS

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) Probate. — Motions for probate were granted in re, Julius Saunders, Mr Richard Waddel, Alexander MeCullough, and E. A. A. Maclean. Administration.—Letters of administration were granted in re Robert Gordon, deceased. Re. WIMJAM WTSI.LB.— Mr J. P. Campbell was to have moved that William Henry Probert be discharged from executorship of the said will, and that John Henry Wells be appointed new executor in his place. Andrew Buchanan v. James B. Hay.— Motion for summons-for the defendant to show cause why lie should not satisfy the judgment entered herein.—On the application of Mr Alexander the matter was allowed to stand over till next Tuesday. Elizabeth Jane Begu v. James Nelson Shepherd, and ANOTHER. —Mr Button moved for leave to serve a writ out of the colony.—The application was granted, the date of hearing being- iixed for the first sittings of the Supreme Court at Auckland after the expiration of a month. Law Practitioners Act. —Mr Griffiths moved for the admission to practice of Mr Hugh Rutherford Shortland, which was deferred to permit of. the filing of another affidavit as to character, the affidavit put in covering a period of only three years. IN BANCO. Hapurora Ruataea and Another v. H. W. Bishop and Wiremo Ngawake.— Motion for writ of prohibition.—Mr Theo. Cooper said that the defence filed in this matter was of such a nature that it rendered it improper ior him to ask for an order of prohibition. He would, therefore, address* himself to the question of costs. He stated that the plaintiffs were aboriginal natives, and were defendants in an action brought against them at the Resident Magistrate's Court, Bay of Islands. The dispute was between two natives concerning customs of "tile tribe, .'and a charge of adultery made against a member of the tribe. Mr Cooper argued in support of his contention, and Mr Baume having replied, His Honor decided that the case was one in which ordinary costs should be allowed.

Thomas Bell v. Ebekezer Fitnkss and Otiieks.—This was an action brought by Thomas Be 1 .!, contractor for the erection of a hall for the Courb Eureka in Wakefield street, against ■ the defendants, Ebenezcr Fitness, James Lovell, Thomas Phillips, and Edward Macky, members of the Court Eureka. The caso had been previously brought against their defendants in their capacity as trustees, judgment was obtained against them, and execution was issued against the property of the society. Execution was issued and only resulted in recovery of £21, and plaintiff now claimed to issue execution against the defendants in their individual capacities as members, for the balance of £811 19s 2d, due on the judgment. Mr E. Hesketh appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Theo. Cooper for the defendants. On Wednesday last Mr Hesketh addressed the Court at considerable length, and Mr Cooper now replied. He submitted that even assuming that the defendants were responsible upon the contract upon which the judgment was founded, his friend's proceedings should have been taken in a different way in order that the whole question at issue, viz., the responsibility of the parties, might be settled. Mr Cooper then wont on to combat Mr Hesketh's arguments, and spoke ab considerable length, quoting numerous authorities.