SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9841, 15 February 1896, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS.

Friday, February 14. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Denniston.) His Honour sat in Chambers at 11 a.m. RE "SUSf" NEWSPAPER COMPANY. In this case the list of contribntorie3 was settled on the application of Mr Hunt. Mr Hunt applied for an order appointing Mr Hnnt as solicitor to the Official Liquidator. His Honour pointed out that the whole capital to be called up was £140. The whole amount available would be some £90. and the debts amounted to £90. He called attention to this because tue question of costs might crop up, and in w_s purely a matter for the creditors. He would make the order as asked for. The question of Mrs Garmson*. objection was adjourned until the first sittings in Chambers. RE PETER HARRIS, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Byrne the question of commission to the executor was referred to the Registrar. COLONIAL BANK OF NEW ZSALAND V MERCANTILE FINANCE COMPANY. Mr Russell applied herein for trial of the case by special jury. Hia "Honour uiaae the ordtjr as prayed. RE H EATON, DECEASED. On the applic-bion of Mr Slater, the Registiar's report herein was confirmed. RE KOBT. FEAR, DECEASED. Mr Helmore applied herein for probate. His Honour granted the order. f B- JAMKi THOIirSON, DECEASED. Mr Helmore obtained an order herein for probate. FLEMING V FLETCHER. This was an application for the appointment of new Trustees. Mr Russell now said that he had submitted the names of three gentlemen, two of whom be had not spoken to about tbe case. His Honour asked Mr Russell what was the objection to the appointment of the Public Trustee. Mr Russell Baid that, if the Public Trustee were to be appointed, the plaintiff could not transact busiue33 except through Wellington. If the plaiutifi" wished to have a chat with the Public Trustee she would have to go to Wellington. His Honour did not know that the office of Public Trustee had been created tor the purpose of having chats for beneficiaries. Mr Russell submitted that the plaintiff bad a right to ask the Court to respect her wisiies in the matter. Where the tenant for life had the power of approval of the trustees, the Court would, he submitted, see that the trustees who were appointed would look after the interests of the beneficiaries. He submitted that Mr Arenas, not having given any reason against the three gentlemen submitted as trustees, except his caprice for the appointment of the Public Trustee, his Honour would not refuse application.

His Honour said that it was most essential under the circumstances that the trust should be admiuisterel by perfectly impartial trustee or trustees. He saw no reason why a public officer, who was appointed, expressly for such cases as this, should not be appointed. The interest of the plaintiff was in the future, and the tenant for life was mostly interested in the matter, and had to pay the costs of the administration, aud, therefore, as the parties could not agree he would make au order appointing the Public Trustee. Mr Loughrey for Mr Arenas, the tenant for life. The question of the administration by the Court was adjourned uutii next Chamber sittiag. miss v OVENEES. Ia this case the proposed interrogatories were settled by his Honour, to be auawered iv ten days. Mr Beswick for plaintiff, Mr Fisher for defendant. The Court then rose.