SUPREME COURT-IN CHAMBERS,
(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Be John Ford, bankrupt, and in the matter of the Bankruptcy Act of 16S3and amendments thereof.—Motion for order that costs of Official Assignee be paid out of bankrupt's estate (Mr Solomon). —Accordingly.
HCNTBR AND ANOTHER V. LOW YOW AND others. —Motion for interim injunction to restrain defendants from trespassing (Mr Stilling).—Leave granted to serve notice of motion for injunction along with the writ of summons. Motion to be for any day not less than two clear days after service. Costs to be oosts in cause.
Be Thomas M'Gocn, deceased, intestate, —Motion for letters of administration (Mr Solomon). —Accordingly; one surety, L2OO. Be Jambs Amsxandbk. Thomson, deceased.—Motion for letters of administration, with will annexed, to dispense with sureties, and to fix days for filing inventory and accounts (Mr Milne). —Accordingly. JSt Gboboh Thomas Geobse, deceased.— Motion for letters of odministration and to dispense with sureties (Mr Morrison). — Accordingly. Bt Cas?br Hhnbioh Auleet, deceased.— Motion for remuneration to exeoutors, with Registrar's report (Mr Sim).— Report confirmed accordingly. SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)
Cpetis t. Daniel.—Appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court at Invercargill. Sir R. Stout appeared for appellant; Mr Broderick for respondent. This was a special case on appeal from the decision of Mr J. S. Hickson, Resident Magistrate of the district of Southland, in a ease in which the respondent, Mary Daniel, sued the appellant, George Curtis, for L 47 damages for the alleged wrongful conversion to bis own use of a horse and spring cart, the property of respondent, and valaed at L 29. After the Resident Magistrate had taken evidence he gave the following decision : " As far as the sale-note is concerned I have nothing to do with it; to my mind the document is of very little value. The very fact of the sworn testimony I have heard, that it was drawn up in 18SS and dated 1887, puts it entirely out of Court. The question before me is whether the plaintiff in the present action purchosed the horse from defendant. lam of opinion that she did. She also purchased the dray from M'Lean, as testified to by him there is no doubt about that. If plaintiff had a protection order, which I have no doubt she hasjsheia entitled to hold property on herown account independent of any man she might be living with at the time. I think that the plaintiff bought the horse from defendant and the dray from M'Lean, and that Bhe has paid for both. I will give judgment for the amount claimed, with costs (L 4 195)." Sir R. Stout now moved, on behalf of Curtis, that the case be sent back to the Resident Magistrate for rehearing on the ground that Mr Hickson had wrongly directed himself on points of law—first, as to the effect of the sale-note, and, second, as to how the matter of damages should be dealt with. Counsel added that the evidence, in any view, did not warrant the conelusion the Magistrate had arrived at. Mr Broderick having been heard in reply,
His Honor directed that the case be referred back to the Magistrate for rehearing, with oosfca of thia heariDg (LlO 10s) and disbursements. RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. (Before E. H. Carew, Esq., R.M.)
Drew v. CurHs. —In this case, a claim for the alleged wrongful conversion of goods, beard before His VVorthip in June last, Mr Brodrick (of Invercargill), counsel for plaintiff, yesterday applied for a rehearing on the ground that further evidence could be adduced.—His Worship to-day gave his deeision on the application, which was granted.—Mr Sim (representing the defendant) asked that security should be given for the costs of the rehearing, and His Worship ordered that this should be done to the extent of Ls.—On the application of Mr Brodriek a change of venue was granted to Invercargill, where it was asserted the case conld be more conveniently heard, as both parties were well known there, and most of the witnesses resided in that district.
Francis M'Grath v. Robt. Wynn.—Claim, LlO Ss, on a judgment summons. Mr E. Cook appeared for plaintiff; Mr Barclay for defendant. This case had been adjourned from yesterday so as to proeure Mrs Wynn's evidence.—Defendant and his wife having been subjected to & lengthy examination, His Worship said he could not find that defendant had had means to satisfy the judgment. It was a mistake to give a laboring man credit for LlO. The case would be dismissed.
John Drake v. William Reid.— Claim,Lls, for damage done to a flock of sheep by the trespass of a dog, the property of defendant, on plaintiffs paddocks at Signal Hill. Mr Solomon for plaintiff; Mr Calvert for defendant.—Evidence having been heard, His Worship reserved judgment till Monday;
Permanent link to this item
THE COURTS-TO-DAY., Evening Star, Issue 8017, 20 September 1889
THE COURTS-TO-DAY. Evening Star, Issue 8017, 20 September 1889
Using This Item
Allied Press Ltd is the copyright owner for the Evening Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons New Zealand BY-NC-SA licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Allied Press Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.