SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 143, 18 June 1891, Page 9

SUPREME COURT.

THIS DAY.

I (Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Conolly.) When the Supreme Court opened this morning His Honor Mr Justice Conolly announced that he had yesterday mentioned a number of the civil casee thab pere to come before the Court, but because so few solicitors were present) Jie could get very little information as to what course was to be pursued in regard to them. He therefore proceeded to mention a number of the cases.

"Stewart v. Jordan. — In this case plaintiff claimed certain land with £10 /ffiesne profits. Mi Alexander, for defendant, stated thab he was prepared to ibpnfess judgment for possession of the land fjrithout- costs or damages, and that Mr Hesketh, for the plaintiff, was prepared to accept that course. His Honor therefore filtered up judgment accordingly. ftt Colonial Bank y. Greenway.—When, this case was mentioned, Mr Cooper, for defendant, stated that lie was nob prepared ;fc6say what he would do in regard to it. jjjfhen the case was called on. next day he sfrould say what course he would pursue. I ISMonaqhan'v. QuiNLAN.—His Honor said ! that he would not take this case till after t|e jury cases. Cases without a jury might) bp taken on Tuesday, but the probabi'ity was that that they would not be taken before Thursday. The case of Brierly f| the Mayor and Councillors of Onehunga will not be taken before j tfe jury caaee, nor will thab of the Thames, [Harbour Board v. BagnalL McMurray v.'• j;]|cMurray will come on, the defendant) 'fishing for directions as to who is to re- ! ceive certain deeds. It will be the first) i else to-morrovr. Kelly v. Hughes will nob be taken before the jury cases. ' j:Official Assignee v. Black.—"When His* (Honor mentioned this case, Mr Cooper said that the first question in the catse j'&jas whether or no the case should be tried :|efore a jury. Mr Hesketh, who appeared for the defendant Black, submitted that as the amount involved was without doubt over £500, the case should under the rules be tried before a judge and jury, nob .before the judge alone. His Honor thought that a's the matter in dispute was over £500, though not a question of debt or damages. iIwGS a proper one for a jury. Ho would live judgment to-morrow morning. £Davis v. Long.— In this case Moss Da via gied Patrick Long with the Object of living accounts taken in regard to the ||a.de of the Arch Hill Hotel under an agreement entered into by the parties it* ihjne, 1890. The evidence in the case ejosed on February 16th last, and the case >Was adjourned for the addresses of counsel. ?Mr Theo. Cooper opened his address for ijipfendant this morning. .The Qgteenv. Mackechnie.—ln thiscasa ;t|e claim was for the possession of the title ■<fjjßdß of the Kaihu Valley Railway Com--pany. Certain new facts pleaded by defendant were read over in Court this morn;jgg. They went to show that defendanb ;Jjsd incurred certain expenses in dof|iding the Kaihu Valley Railway Company against claims by Nimmo and ijhne for compensation. The Government had consented that those expenses should Jif considered as cosb of construction and should be paid as such. Defendanb had nob bfen paid by the company, and he claimed t|at he should be paid by the Government) Ijefore he delivered up the deeds. Mr Button for the plaintiff, and Mr E. Hesketh for the defence, were heard, and His Honor gave ifjidgmenfe as before for the plaintiff without costs.—Mr Hesketh asked that execution should be stayed, as he believed deflndanb would appeal.— His Honor said thab notice of appeal would have to be given, before he could make "an order for the stay of execution. His Honor said he would nob ask Mr Campbell to reply. He thought plaintiff had raado out bis case and judgment would go ior him in terms of paragraphs 1, 3, and the alternative ot 4 of the statement of !cjaim, with costs on the lovvesb scale and 4ghb guineas for the second day. Leave ; ;tS make application for an injunction would be given.