SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10760, 13 September 1900, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO,

A sitting in banco was held yesterday, before his Honour Mr Justice Martin, when the case of McLeQand v Arkle and another, an originating summons, in which the executrix under the will of Christopher Arkle, deceased, was plaintiff, and two of the children of the testator, defendants, was heard. The plaintiff sought to obtain a decree determining whether the defendants had any right to the sum of £232, now in the hands of the plaintiff, as executrix, and held by her for the beneficiaries under the will of her deceased sister, Isabella Fawcus, who was one of the children of the deceased Christopher Arkle. Mr Franks appeared for the plaintiff, and obtained an order to pay out the sum to the beneficiaries under the will of Isabella Fawcus.

BOWRON BROS, v STAGE. This was an appeal against the judgment of Mr R. Beetham, S.M., in a case, Stace ! v Bowron Bros. The respondent sued the | appellants in the Court below for __100 under the Employers' Liability Act- for an accident which had occurred to him by falling into a pit. at the tanneiy belonging to the appellants. The accident, the plaintiff in the Court below alleged, had occurred through a scantling which was placed across the pit giving way, and also by the Slaintiff carrying out the order of one •owdall, a person exercising- supervision at the tannery. The magistrate held that the scantling was a way within the meaning of the Act, and that--be* accident was the result of plaintiff carrying out the orders of a person having supervision, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs. This was the decision now appealed against, it being contended, for the appel-' lants, that the scantling was not a way within the meaning of the Act, and that Dowdail was a feilow-servant and not a person exercising supervision. (Mr Stringer for the appelant, Sir Geo. j Harper for the respondent. Learned counsel having addressed . his i Honour and cited a number of authorities. His Honour took time to consider. j CHRISTCHURCH TRAMWAY COMPANY V JOHN ELDRED.

In this case the respondent (John Eldred) sued the appellants in the Court below for £118 14s 4d as commission on advertisements obtained under an -agreement, and the Magistrate gave judgment, £101 2s lOd. The agreement entered into between the parties provided that Eldred could give a fortnight's notice of termination of the agreement, the Company to be at liberty to dismiss Eldred at any time. In either case Eldred was to receive 20 per cent, commission on the balance uncollected of all nevrand approved advertisements up to the end of the year, i.e., 30th June, 1893, or 30th June, 1894. Eldred continued in the service of the Company under the original agreement till June 30th, 1900. He claimed 20 per cent, on all moneys payable to the Company after 30th June from advertisers introduced by him. An appeal was now made on the ground that on the law and the Acts the judgment for plaintiff for £10112s lOd was erroneous, and shouldhave been entered for the defendant; or in the alternative that the judgment should be reduced by £77 10s. The respondent's contention was that he was entitled under the agreement to receive the 20 per cent, on all advertisements collected through hint thoitgh the payment therefor might extend beyond Juno 30th. For the appellant Company, Mr Wilding For the respondent, Mr Stringer. After argument, his Honour took time to consider. - The Court then rose.