SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXV, Issue 1709, 8 June 1866, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Sittings in Banco. Thursday, June 7. (Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gresson.) Wynn Williams v. CmtisTCHuncH City Council, In this case the plaintiff, who had taken out a writ in error, was called on by a rule to show cause why the same should not be discharged, on the ground that it was a wrong mode of procedure, and that the writ had been obtained irregularly and against good faith, pending the proceedings in the present appeal. Plaintiff in person, Dr. Foster for the defendants. Mr. Wynn Williams said that the affidavits on which the rule was obtained did not contain a description of the persons making them. His Honor said that lie would not take notice of that irregularity. Mr, Williams then said that the grounds of irregularity were not slated in the rule, and that the affidavit did not sliow that any proceedings were pending before his Honor. The affidavit, in fact, could not show that, for the case had been sent back to the Itesiilent Magistrate, and had not been relumed. It was said in the affidavit tint (here was a breach of good faith in taking out the writ, but there whs not a single hint given as to the grouuds on which the statement was made.

His Honor said that he presumed that what was meant by breach of good faith was that Mr. Williams, hiving once brought the case into this Court, hud no right to drop it. Ills Honor said further that his present impression was that Mr. Williams could take bis case tu the Court of Appeal from this Court, with (lit- leave of the Judge, which, in such a case, lie would certainly give. Mr. Williams said that Mr. Travers had advised him to the contrary; had he known that, there would have been no necessity to

rcmovo Mr. Allen's caso to the Supreme Court, or to take out tho writ of error in hit own caso. He would' beg leave to withdraw tho writ, but he should not bo saddlodwith tho costs, an l)r, Foster had not taken the proper proceedings to set it aside. ■ A writ of error Bhould not bo sot aside by,a rule, but by a mlt procedendo, -. Aftcr.somo argument lon the,question of costs, his Honor mado th(j rule absoluto, plaintiff to pay costs. CAHILL V. IIEALICY, Mr. Wynn Williams for plaintiff; Mr. Garrick for defendant. Demurrer to declaration was allowed, with costs, and leave was given to plaintiff to amend.