SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 578, 5 August 1909, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

BANCO SITTINGS. WAS THERE CORROBORATIVE ■'■':■ EVIDENCE? -An appeal from'---tho decision of. Mr. , W-.-G. Riddell, S.M.,' in the case of Ethel Taylor Versus Robert Coulston,':was heard by his Honour Mr. Justice Cooper at a sitting, of the Supreme Court yesterday morning. The magistrate. had made an order against the for 7s: .weekly, in; support .of the plaintiff's child, together with £6 13s f costs. Mr /Wilford, • who appeared .'for,, the de'f en--dant "(now appellant), Coulston,/.contended that there ■ was no . corroborative, evidence within the,meaning of the Destitute Persons Act, '.1908,..t0 Justify' tho magistrate-in : ; his decision..,'-' '.'.'■ ;, . . ,'r. '■; Mr.,Von Hhasfv for the plaintiff (now. resubmitted that 'the evideiico'. tendered /in .the Lower..' Court/was r ample on which'.'to make ah 'order: 'for maintenance against the defendant; ; :/ /'_ '■'■: ';/; V ;/V ': His Honour remarked '/that'; in the case'',, as stated by,, the:magistrate,: the .evidence was lacking ; m an; .important- /particular. He would therefore refer ; the matter: back'to the

"THE FAMILY LAWYER."'

H:[ /' :.iA. BOOK; AND? iTS.CdST.^./;/;;. ' .'ln Banco yesterday, his Honour Mr. Jus-, tice considered.- a motion for the setting aside of-a Supreme- Court judgment, .obtained by.default,.in the case of Edward Henry Fisher, (printer) v; Frederick; William - Shortlahd'(solicitor,' of Taumaiuriui).' > Tho facts /were .that the defendant, Shortla'nd,: had arranged -a contract -with plaintiff, ■hj -.which -the latter was to 'print 2000, copies a';bodk to bellied family Lawyer,", .Tie price .-to be : paid ' for-tho printing arid' | -binding was, originally: 2s, 6d. per'volume. ■ but when the size of the bo.ok was increased from ■100, ; to, about 300 pages, the defe'n>Jan'jt .agreed.to.pay :4s. for;each book.;y.The' term's, were that 500/ copies.''.should, be bound at! once; .and- ;h'alf i.'of -the purchase, money/.was. to be.harided over/when the'first proofs/were corrected,: the ■ balance, to'.'- be '.paid ■ oh," the: complctiojv,; ofi :: the.:.binding-, of .500 /.copies.' '-Plaintiff "obtained"'/ judgment' byv defa'ult/'-in '.the-./Supjeme l ' Court/' for/'£400,, "defeifdant .having omitted /-to fijo ■, his/, 'statenicnt' of'defence.-',;■' ;■'■'.:":/' ; '' ; '':', ■ /-:' -;;/ '"- ; ■"■■/-■'■ /.; On . beh'alf of'the defendant, •; Mr. Dalziell moved'to have this/judgment set; aside)-and. Mr;._W..',j;,BlTrewin,-'who appeared for the'plainti.ffi'- Fisher",,' opposed the motion.' "\\ ;., ': ■';...His j Honour/-granted -the order' asked for; 'and ..awarded 'five /guineas, costs against' the /defendant, ShortlandV,;-' ; ;,i>;-;-:;.-!•.'' •■ : -.!,'-."|/i; ; /'"'.

'" 'P::\ i:■ PROFESSIONAL;COSTS;:';'.'''';';:.'' '.:

:;V;7'I ; '7DELAYviNSEm }' Estate Company for; costs;™ a'jndgnient; ;6b : tiiricd by.-tliem against;.J'.-.-Nathan..arid Co.' 'in August, 1908,. the '.question' of costa-:liav'-. 'irig. been, reserved at .the', trial; '■; Counsel', at 'the -i trial ; were > the■'-, Attorney-General i'.: (t-h'o .Hon:'::DrV'-Findlay,::K.C,), 'and. Mr. Sharp;;. ;r'epr&bnting'"the;'-Makerui ;'Company'',Mr., . Myers' for Mcssrs/'Natbari arid'. Co.j'and ;Mr. ; . ;M6risori for Schmidt.'..Mr. Sharp (instructed. by : Tin'dlay, : l)a]:dell;and'C^.)'now; ; Biippo.itcd th-biapplication, and',Mr.; Von, Haast appeared; ; fdiv. Schmidtj -Mr.';; Myers'/. again'representing ■.Nathaii ; --and,!Co:V ;■-,;''•: v.';',:';'; 1 ; : T7;,.-'.'ii ■'-;'iV ;>i\lr.<! Sharp; raid'.'that.ytheJMakerua ,Cpni- : pahy 'had • succeeded.- inHheir vdniin. jagairist ..Nathan audvCo.',',.dos'pite' the steadfast' resist- : ;anc9 as set butrin the amended statementof defence. An adjournment had occasioned entirely-' by -the' conduct of::; Messrs. ■Nathan';-in 'putting;;;iii" = lan 'amended;:defence On' tfie'morning.of, the;; trial.. W the'whole of .the : Nathan \:-knd '■;; Co.' had been' practically ::drag'ged ; the ;Makerua-;'opiripany info unwill-: :ingVhtigatipii^^V^::v':«'iV-; r -'J'";'. ■.■'•''•:■'7 : ' ;: : )-'-' i : parties; He .was under tfetinlpresfiWrl•>th'atitllcr6 , had been'an .was'lstrength-, Ijened by,the fact.that : n<>thing : 'had b.een done/ aliTnough:'judgment■;ha'd';c|)Mn l ''deliyered last 'September. ;'';,. ' 10_.- fe'^ ; :v77^''!''o'-''-''■'..''. '■■/: '.His Honour - saidy 1 that .he/had -tfever', be-' fore knowh tlie.prqfession to be,.so lax.iriitlio settlemerit'of costs. '-The-Makerua'; Company wpuld ;boValJowed? twenty-five. guineas, against: :Nathan,!and| Col/.and Schmidt .was ordered to ;pay. ten ;guineas: costs lo::Nathan-land•■:■ Com-. 'pan^;!';7'7;'- 1 ;-;:;; ■:;;'■:;' < - ■!!; 7.:.' : '7:.777.7 :7, .'■:• ■ Ari; appeal from, the ; decision of Mr. ; W. •■ 6>,' ltiddol],'S.;Jl;j re'gardirig "a ; promis'sor.y:'rib'to was heard before 'fionou.r . Mr., justjep Chapman yesterday7-.mbrningV.'.(Tho^JVfagis- 1 trafc had;givcn7'. judgment --for', I .Elizabeth: :Spme'rvill6' as.the holder, of - a:..promissory, note .endorsed ,by' Charles;'O'Brien 'Buckland; :Lamb,;'fbrraerly. of .-Wellingtoii; ;,no'w president ! ,in,Englandi^;The'..prbmissbry .note-in .questions/was payable' threo.,':nibiiths. after-date,, and contained the'words M to bo renewed for three months' if ; required.";'. Th'o. point; now' argued:■ was .whetlier; the' inclusion" of th'ocp ,words; rendered' t;he .'dpeument not ;a; 'promissory,;ri'otb. Mr. A:;de. B. Brandon;; jim.; \yTid appeared: for-'theiappellant,';Lamb,, argued; .that.'.the, words -were, capable of .three. ir.eaii=; '.ings., i',prio -'.view,;was. that the proiriise.^ivas' conditional, another; ; that'the ,'note was?not'.' payable; at.' a ."fixed, or determinable' fiituTe timbi"-anti a third-that it'was a promis'e.tb pay £20;Vor to giye'a new'• iiote.~ : Counsel! therefdre.submitted that the document ;was v void;beoaiise a':promissory ,jiote:.must'be for,; ,the : payment of'money.;'.:'! ''•-•'.'-■.,;;;,;; His Honour Reserved, decision on '.■'.:■ 'that' ,point. ;; .' ■-.. /." ':/ : ''---iy!'-'] '■:'■■' ,'7'-'■>':■•.■'. :■'•"''