SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1691, 18 May 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

* Thursday, Mat 17th, 1866.

SITTINGS IK BANCO. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gresson.)

MCNDY V. M'LEAN AND OTHEUS. His Honor gave judgment in this case, allowing the demurrer with costs.

winn williams v. christchuboh cht counoil.

This case, being an appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court, which was sent back to him to be amended, was re-commenced yesterday, having been so amended. Mr. Travers appeared for the appellant; Dr. Foster for the respondents. His Honor said that he had still great difficulty in this case, as the points of law on which the Resident Magistrate based his decision were not distinctly set out. He would still have to gather them by spelling through the case.

Mr. Travers submitted that there was the further grave objection that the whole of the facts of the case were not set out, and that it was not in the form in which it should come before the Court, but that was not the fault of the appellant. He referred to the case of Backhouse v. Churchwardens of Bishop Wearmouth, Q.C.8., new series, vol. 9 p. 315, an appeal by a quaker against a church rate, and contended that certain requirements were not complied with. Iu the present case there were certain works under section 20 of the Ordinance, for which special rates might be made. If his Honor looked at section 37 of the Ordinance, which, he would submit, must be read strictly in connection with the 20th, he would find that the course pointed out was exactly that pursued in England in cases of the same kind. The specific work intended to be done with the rate should be determined on ; the object for which the rate was levied must be one of that specific character corning within the words of the section; the expense of that work should be ascertained ami the rate must be made so as to repay (not provide for the construction only,) but repay the amount with interest within any period not exceeding five years, as thecouncil should in each case determine. By the 37th clause the Council had power to borrow by mortgage or otherwise, but in no case was the sum to exceed the estimated revenue of the Council for fire years, In England it was usual to borrow in this way. and provide for the repayment by instalments by a special rate. Mr, Williams had contended before the Magistrate that the special work should be stated, and an estimate of its cost made, so that the special rate might recoup the amount and no more. What he found fault with in the case was that the evidence produced by the Plaintiffs below for the purpose of sustaining their claims was not set forth. The case ought to state the facts and the decision. His Honor said, that he was in a difficulty from the manner in which the case was stated. For instance it was said that these Acts and Ordinances were ultra vires, but the Magistrate overruled the objection. The grounds however, were not stated, whether lie considered that he had no jurisdiction or whether he was of opinion that the Acts were not beyond the powers of the Provincfol Council. Dr. Foßterlsaidthat Mr. Bowcn had decided on the ground that the Acts were good, although he himself had not anticipated that the decision would be given on that ground, His Honor said, that he would adhere to what he had stated in the outset viz,, that his

decision could not be satisfactory, as it would leave the broad question open, whether the I'roviicial Council had the power or not. His Honor said further that the Court could not decide, unless the points were clearly before it. If the points of law were fairly stated, and sufficient facts mentioned to enable the Court to understand the case, that was sufficient.

Br. Foster argued at some length that all that was sufficient was in the case.

His Honor said that, although he had great objections to the case as stated, and although it put him in an unfair position, yet, on account of its being a public matter, and from the great expense which would be caused by delay, he was willing to go on with it. He thought, however, that it was encumbered with a great deal of unnecessary matter which might be struck out, He had hoped that, after a short pithy statement of the case, the points of law on which the Magistrate based his decision, might be stated. He thought also that much expense and delay would be saved by having the unnecesary matter expunged from the case. Mr. Travers said that if the case was sent back he would expedite it as much as possible, but he would be unable to attend More his Honor on Thursday next, on account of other business.

After some argument, it was decided that the case should stand over for further amendment and simplification by the Resident Magistrate.

MAGISTRATE'S COUET. CHBISTCHURCH. Thubsday, Mat 17th, 1866. (Before C. C, Bowen, Esq., E.M.) Bbeach of Police Ordihahcb.—Two cases for breach, of this Ordinance, by allowing horses to wander at large, were disposed of. In one instanco a fine of 6s was inflicted; the other being adjourned until this day, in order that the ownership of the horse might be ascertained. John Eowen, who was charged with having been drunk and incapable, was dismissed with a caution. John King, a man of colour, was brought up on a charge of having committed an assault with intent, &c. He was remanded for eight days, in order to obtain the attendance of the witnesses. Thore was another charge of the same nature against the prisoner who, it was stated, had recently undergone a period of two years' imprisonment for the commission of a. similar crime. He was remanded on the second charge as well as on the first. SLAUGHm-HOUSE IICEITCE. (Before C. C. Bowen, Esq., E.M., and E. J. S. Harman, Esq., J.P.) James Jackson obtained a licence for a slaughter-house in the Harewood road. There was no objection offered by the Inspector of Police, as the case had been adjourned from the last licensing meeting on account of the unintentional absence of the applicant. IYTTELTON. Mat 17th, 1866. (Before "W. Donald. Esq., 8.M.) A seaman named Eyles was brought up in custody, charged with creating a disturbance at the Queen's Hotel, on Wednesday evening. The charge was proved by the evidence of the barman and the police. He was fined 2%, and was told by the Resident Magistrate that, as this was the second charge within a few days, if he was brought before him again, he would be imprisoned for a long period.