SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 144, 19 June 1891, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

THIS DAY

(Before His Honor Mr JusticeConolly.) Official Assignee v. Mary Black.—ln this case His Honor delivered hia ruling on the pdnt argued yesterday before him as to whether or no the cuio should bo tried beforo a jury. Mr Hesketh, for defendant, asked that it should be so tried, and Mr Cooper, for plaintiff, opposed the application. His Honor stated that the application should properly have come j beiore him in chambers on summon;-, bub as it had been argued in open Court he would ' frivo his judgment in open Court. The j action was brought to sob aside a cer- ; tain memo. g, c transfer as fraudulent «nd void Bgainsb the creditors of Mis •Slack's husband. The memo, of transfer was dated 11th June, 1884, but was not. registered till 9th July, ISC6. Early in the present year Black ■■Tent bankrupt with liabilities £20,000, and hardly any assets. Isow, there were material questions of fact to bo decided in the case in regard to Black's financial position on the date of tho transfer to his wife, and of its registration. Those material questions of tacb should Ibe tried by a jury. Ho believer! he was I really following Mr Justice Williams' I raling in Isaacs v. Mills, tho case quoted by Mr Cooper. Ho could nob go quite bo far as the head note in re Martin ; but in his opinion when a ease could be tried by a and jury as well as by a judjre alone, and one of v the parties askad that it should be tried by judge and jury, then that party's application should be granted.

Question' of Costs.—The case of tho Colonial Bank v. Greenway was mentioned | uoxt. —Mr Button, who appeared for plaintiff, rose, and said that what purported to be a confession of judgment by defendant had been tiled. What the object in filing it was he could not tell, unless it were meant as a device to escape paying tho full costs. If so it was mote like the action of a London attorney than that of a respectable practitioner. Ho claimed that as the case bad beon called in open Court, and had practically come on for trial, judgment should go In open Court with the proper legal costs. He pointed to rule 303. He also asked for interest under the Bills uf Exchange Act.—Mr Cooper, for defendant, only admitted that plaintiff was en- ■ titled to costs as on a confessed judgment. I His friend had been saved ail the trouble 'of argument. The costs were laid down in i the code at a specific sum. —Aftor some further talk His Honor said he would roserve his judgment on the points raised. McMukbay v. McMukkay.—At the request of Messrs Tole (for plaintiff) and E,. Heskefeh (lor defendant) His Honor ordered that this case should be placed last on the j list. It ought to have been taken this I morning, but; plaintiff was not in attendance. iBKEGCXAr. Warrants. -- His Honor mentioned that in soma of the papers 1 filed in cases ho found an irregui larity in the warrants to sue and to defend. Very often only an authority was filed. That might be sufficient io the first instance, but before the case came on for trial the proper warrant should bo tiled. Baldekston v. Campbell.—This was an action by plaintiff as universal legatee of one McQuarrie, deceased, to compel Campbell, the executor under the will, tD file the account?. Mr Mahony appeared for plaintiff and Ml' Alexander for defendant. Mr Mahony said he believed tho facts were all admitted, bub that tho dofence was that! plaintiff ehould have moved no summons. Mr Mahony argued that he had been quite justified in following the usual course.—Mr Alexander having replied, His Honor said he would grant a decree to plaintiff with costs on the lowest scale, the terms of the decree to be settled in Chambers.