SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLIV, Issue 6660, 27 January 1887, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTING IN BANKRUPTCY. Wednesday, January 26. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor tat in bankruptcy at 10.30 a. ib. RE 0. W. ILL. In this case H G. Ell had been summoned before the Official Assignee to give evidence as to an assignment made to him by his father, the bankrupt. When before the Official Assignee Ell declined to answer any questions until he had consulted Mr Jellieoe, his legal adviser, yesterday. Mr Stringer for the Official Assignee, moved under sec. 101 of the Bankruptcy Act, for the committal of the witness to prison for refusal. His Honor, however, declined to exercise the power at once, and Ell was allowed until to-day to Bubmit. At the Bitting this morning Ell declined to answer the questions of the Official Assignee. His Honor said every opportunity had ] been given to the witness to comply with j the law and he declined. Though he (the I Judge) was reluctant to use the powers conferred upon him by the statute, he J could not pass over the offence of which had been guilty. , The witness was then committed to prison under the section which provides that he is to be kept in prison without bail until he agrees to answer the questions of the Official Assignee touching bis dealings with the estate of the bankrupt. SITTINGS IN BANCO. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in Banco at 11 a.m. LITTLE RIVER ROAD BOARD V. AEAIOA COUNTY COUNCIL. This was an application for an interim injunction. Mr Harper for the Board; Mr Joynt for the County Council. Mr Joynt took the preliminary objection that the notice was not in form according to the rules, not disclosing the grounds except inferentially by affidavit. His Honor ruled teat Mr Joynt’s objection was a good one. The motion and a second one, Akaroa and Wainui Road Board v Akaroa County Council, would be dismissed. Mr Harper then applied ea parte for an interim injunction in the two cases. The case was that a petition was presented to the County Council asking that a new road district should be constituted, which petition was granted. It was objected on the part of two Road Boards that the petition was not signed by twothirds of the ratepayers as provided by the Act, and that thby were opposed to the severance as proposed. A meeting of the Council was to be held on January 27th to confirm the resolution granting the prayer of the petition, and It was this meetingwhich it was sought to restrain by injunction. , . ■ His Honor granted an interim injunction in both cases, to restrain the defendants from holding the meeting as proposed to confirm the special order. HUNGEEFORDV. h’IBAN. In this case, which was an application for removal of defendant from office as a member of the Greymouth Harbor Board, the defendant had resigned whilst the case was in progress. Mr Weston now moved for an order removing the defendant. His Honor made the order as prayed, COBIB to be taxed by the Registrar. HUNGEBFOBD V KENNEDY. This was a similar case, and his Honor, on the application of Mr Weston, made a like order. GABFORTH (APPELLANT) V WESTON (RESPONDENT ) This was an appeal from the judgment of Mr R. Beetbam, Resident Magistrate at Christchurch. The respondent, Frank Weston, was defeadant in the Court below in a case in which the appellant, Sam. Garforth, laid an information against him under Seotions 26 and 27 of the Animals Protection Act, 1870, that he was on his land at Spreydon in pursuit of game. The Resident Magistrate dismissed the case, and the plaintiff in the Court below, now the appellant, appealed. The case, as stated, was that the respondent was discovered by the appellant on his land with three dogs and a gun. The respondent admitted the trespass, but denied that he was in pursuit of game, and stated that he was looking after pigs which had strayed. stated that he had heard a shot fired just before he met the respondent, but there was no evidence that the gun was discharged by the respondent, and just after the respondent had passed through the paddock a dead lamb was discovered by the appellant The Resident Magistrate considered the case proved that the respondent was in pursuit of game, and fined him 40a. When the Magistrate gave his judgment, the counsel for appellant Btated that they would not have come into Court had it not been for his sheep being disturbed This raised a doubt in the mind of the Resident Magistrate as to whether the respondent was trespassing in pursuit of game, and he dismissed the case. Against this decision appeal was made. Mr Joynt with him Mr Spackman for appellant j Mr Stringer for the respondent. Mr Joynt submitted that the magistrate had considered the evidence of trespass in pursuit of game sufficient, as he had convicted, and therefore he had no right to dismiss the case because of the motive which had induced the appellant to lay the information. Mr Stringer submitted that a doubt having been raised in the mind ot the magistrate, he was entitled to give the respondent the benefit of that doubt, His Honor did not call on Mr Joynt to reply. He could not see that the presumption that the respondent was in pursuit of game was rebutted by the evidence. The case must be remitted back to the Magistrate with the expression of opinion on the part of the Court that the presumption of the sections of the Act under which the information had been laid, that the xespondent was in pursuit of game had not been rebutted by evidence, and that the reason for the dismissal ot the case was an erroneous one. Appeal sustained with oo*ts, £5 6s. The Court then adjourned until next day.