SUPREME COURT—THIS DAY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 82, 8 April 1891, Page 8

SUPREME COURT—THIS DAY.

(Before Hi 3 Honor Mr Justice Conolly.) IN BANKRUPTCY. Gkaham, Pitt, and Bennett, ex faiite Nolan and Skeet.—This was an appeal from the decision of the Deputy Assignee, Gisborne, rejecting a proof of debt for £195 by Messrs Nolan and Skeet, solicitors. His Honor now gave his decision dismissirm' the appeal, wifch costs £7 7s. IN BANCO. Robert Kurtz (appellant) and Edward Aickens (respondent).—Mr Theo. Cooper moved to reverse the determination of Dr. J. Giles, R.M., in the case of Aickons v. Kurtz.—Mr H. Williamson, Crown Prosecutor, opposed the motion. In this case, ths defendant was charged before Dr. Giles recently with the larceny of £100, the property of Edward Aickens, of Melbourne. An extradition warrant was granted, and the present argument was an appeal therefrom by the defendant. — Mr Cooper argued that tho case should have been more fully stated by Dr. Giles, and asked thab it should be remitted back to the magistrate to provide a copy of the evidence. He proposed to submit that Dr. Giles should not have been satisfied with the evidence as to identity ; in fact, that there was no evidence on this.point. —Mr Williamson argued that the case was sufficiently stated to enablo thia Court to review the magistrate's conclusions, and that even if the evidence were produced there would be no cause shown for reversal of the decision given in the lower Court. The Magistrate actod upon a warrant, tho bona jides of which he was satisfied of, and he was also satisfied on the question of identity,—His Honor, after consulting authorities on the point, said this appeared to bo a general appeal on the case itself, and was nob like an ordinary appeal. Thia Court had to bo satisfied that thero was evidonco on which tho accused should bo remitted to another colony, end tho case would be remitted back to the magistrate for v copy of the depositions. If possiblo he would tako the case at 11 on Saturday.

Alleged Contempt of Court.—ln the matter of the Law Practitioners Act, ISS2, and its amendment?, and of William Robert Franklin, a solicitor, Mr Cotter moved that XV. R. Franklin bo adjudged guilty of contompb of Court. .Mr Cotter said the notice of motion could not be served upon Mr Franklin, and the case was struck out. —Mr Cotter moved on behalf of the Law Society in similar terms against George Taj lor Keotlcy. An adjournment had been granted to enable Mr Keetley to pay up his practising fees, but he had not done so. Mr Kectley appeared in person. The motion alleged that Mr Kectley on tho 21th November, 1890, practised in tho Supremo Court as a barrister on behalf of John Baßsett, not having obtained the necessary certificate of competency. It was with regret that the Law Society took these proceedings, bub Mr Keetley had neglected topayhis practising fees for severalyears.— Mr Keetley stated that hisdefaultaroscfrom circumstances over which he had no control, and, in tho particular case montionod, his cliontwasunableto pay any fees. — Mr Cotter said Mr Keetley could not deny that tho had been practising both as barrister and solicitor. — His Honor said that if a man could not pay £4 4h fees, ho could not pay £50.—Mr Cobter said if he could not pay the £4 4s it secmod thab ho should givo up practice—His Honor said the Act did not give himpowertosuspendMrKeetley's practice.—Mr Cotter suggested thab His Honor might impose a penalty which should nob be enforced until a lator date, to give Mr Keetley the opportunity of paying his feos in the interim.—His Honor adjudged Mr Keetley to be guilEy of contempt of Court, and reserved judgment for a month. If within that time the fees duo and costs were paid, no more would be hoard of the mattor. — Mr Cotter made a similar application in respect of Charles Edward Madden, who did not appear. Allidavits wore put in showing that Mr Madden on the sth September, practised as a barrister in a criminal case as counsel for James Bell.—His Honor mado the same order as in tho provious caee. Assessment pv Duty.—ln the matter of the Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act, and re Allan Kerr Taylor (deceased),Mr E. Hesketh appeared on behalf of the appellant, and Mr Cobter for the Commissioner of Stamps. Mr Hesketh said this was a case on appeal under the Deceased Persons' Estates Duty Act of 1881, Amendment Act, 1885, with the object of obtaining the opinion of the Court whether Mrs Taylor, widow of the deceased Allen Kerr Taylor, is absolutely entitled to a fund which is to bo used for the purpose of producing an annuity for her under bho will As far as he could sco, the wholo argument would turn upon tho interpretation of the words "absolutely entitled," under the Act of 1885. The deceased died on tlte 14th April, 1800, and bho final balance was certified under the provisions of tho Act at £20,041 13s lid. Duty was assessed by the Commissioner of Stamps at £1,002 Is Bd, which tho executors declined to pay. Under the will, which was drawn up by deceased, the widow, beinn' unmarried, was to be absolutely entitled to a particular sum which would produce a life annuity of £500 ; or in the event of the widow marrying- again she was to receive a life annuity of £100, to be uncontrolled by her husband.— Mr Cotter contended that the Act mado a distinction between property being left absolutely to the widow, and where she had only a life interest or annuity under the will. He quoted authorities to show thaD duty was chargeable on the corpus that produced the life estate given to the widow.—Mr Hesketh replied asserting that there was no provision made for a case of this kind, and laid stress on the terms of the will giving to the widow, power to bequeath how the property should go at her death.—His Honor decided that the widow was not absolutely entitled to the whole of the particular sum that would produce £300 per annum, and that consequently the amount of duty to be refunded would be nil.—lt was agreed that this decision should hold good with regard to the alternative bequest to the widow of £100 per annum.—Judgment was therefore given for the Commissioner of stamps with £10 10s costs.

John Probert's Estate.—ln the matter of the Deceased Persons' Estates Duties Act, 1881, and re John Probert, deceased, Mr Bubton moved an argument for special cases. —This matter, by consent, was allowed to stand over till next Banco sitting. Perry and Newalt. v. The Union Bank of Australia. —Mr Theo. Cooper, instructed by Mr Outhwaite, moved for argument of questions of law. Mr E. Hesketh appeared for the defendant. The statement of claim set out that by a deed dated Ist September, 1890, the defendants demised a certain farm of 600 acres, in Waikato, and became under an obligation to enable the plaintiffs to enter upon the same on the first September, 1890. The occupant of the farm, Daniel Bockett, refused to give up possession, and the questions to be decided were: did the defendant, by reason of the lease mentioned or otherwise, become bound to the plaintiff to give possession of the farm, and to enable the plaintiff to enter upon tho same ; and whether the covenant was prejudiced by the action of Daniel Bockett. — Argument of law points occupied the Court until a late hour this afternoon. Aftor hearing the argument of counsel. His Honor said he would nob decide the questions of law until questions of fact had been decided. The argument would therefore stniid over.