SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume L, Issue 8665, 14 December 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Wednesday, December 13. (Before his Honour Mr jilstfce Debniston.) His Honour sat in Banco at 11.30. PUBLIC TRUSTEE V MORRISON. This case stood over for further argument. CARDEN V GILLETT. Mr Fishes applied in this case, .which has been partly heard, to put in the conditions of sale and to prove by Mr Parkerson that the sale of the property was b/ order of the mortgagee. Mr Stringer objected to the conditions of sale being put in. His Honour Baid the conditions of sale having been repudiated how did Mr Fisher propose_to prove it ? Mr Fisher would have to prove the conditions of the sale in the ordinary way. The matter stood over to enable a day to be fixed to have the conditions of sale proved formally. HADFIELD (APPELLANT) V AEMSTRONO (RESPONDENT.) This was a case on appeal from the decision of Mr R. Beetham, R.M., fining the appellant, who is an hotelkeeper in Sydenham for selling liquor without a license, -under the decision of his Honour Mr Justice. Denniston. Mr Loughrey for appellant, Mr Caygill for respondent. The case was arranged to be taken next day at 11 a. m. RODGER V RODGER. 'In this case, which was for the construction of a will, his Honour gave judgment. The question on which the opinion of the Court was sought was whether the defendant, who is the widow of the testator, should have the absolute control of the property, or whether she should only act as executrix on behalf of the children who were plaintiffs in the suit. His Honour came to the conclusion that the widow should take' absolute control of the property under the will, and that the costs of all parties should be paid out of the .state. Mr Wilding for plaintiff; Mr Bruges for defendant.