SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXI, Issue 7221, 22 April 1884, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL CASES. Monday, Arum 21. (Before Ilia Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) NATHAN V. OOOKSON. In this case, judgment in which had been hold over. His Honor gave a v< r r< |’°t for the plaintiff on the ground that the giving of the bill of sale was fraudulent undo* the statute of Elizabeth. Costs on the middle scale, the question of accounts to bo gone into subsequently. Mr Austin appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Harper appeared for tho defendant. COYLE V. THE qUEICN. Mr Harper (with him Mr Spaokman) for defendant, by arrangement obtained the postponement of this oaso_. There was no appearance on tho other side. HAEKON V. OILLON AND ANOTHER. Mr Joynt informed the Court that this case was in process of settlement. BANK OF AUSTRALASIA V. MITCHELL. Mr Joynt informed tho Court that this case was in process of settlement. Mr Wilding, on tho other side, consented to an adjournment. CHRISTCHURCH DRAINAGE BOARD V. STINSON., Mr Garrick asked that this case might stand over. Mr Harper consented. FUCHS AND WIFE V. UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY. Mr Harper moved, by arrangement, that this case should bo set down for trial by a special jury on Tuesday, April 29. His Honor granted the application, JOYNT V. COWLISIKAW. Mr Joynt asked that this case might stand over, as an important witness was too ill to attend. It was ordered to bo set down for Juno 16. WILSON V. DUNBAR, Mr M'Connel, Mr Holmes consenting, obtained the adjournment of this case till the next sitting of the Court. BROWN V. KILGOUB. By consent of learned counsel, Messrs Wilding and Purnell, this case was set down for trial on Thursday next. BARKER V. SHUTTLEWORTH. By consent of learned counsel, Messrs Joynt and Holmes, this case was set down for trial on May 5. SCOTT V. OUDSELL. This case was set down for Thursday next. (Before a Jury of four.) WRIGHT V. CHRISTCHURCH DRAINAGE BOARD. Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Garrick appeared for the defendants. T The plaintiff, John Wright, was a fanner at Papanui, and claimed from the defendants .£4OO for damages, caused to his land by the negligent, improper and insufficient deepening, &c., and maintaining watercourses, &c., so as to cause an overflow of large quantities of water into and over his land, spoiling the crops and injuring the said land. The defendants denied all the material allegations, and pleaded that they had done the works complained of under the Drainage Act, 1875,” and the damages were consequential damages under Clause 44, while the plaintiff had not brought himself within the proviso entitling him to claim damages. Mr Garrick objected that the claim neither set up a cause of action within Section 44, nor did it attempt to deal with the side channels, which were said to act as feeders of the alleged drain negligently cut and maintained. Mr Harper did not rely upon Section 44. For the plaintiff, the following evidence was called:— George M'lntyra, authorised and licensed surveyor: Had made the enlarged map produced, from the Survey Office maps and the drains and levels from the Drainage Board records. Had been on the ground and inspected it. Knew the position of most of the drains. Knew Kruse’s drain, which extends to the west boundary of plaintiff’s land; also Dowell’d drain, extending from the North road, and running into Kruse’s drain, before this reaches plaintiff. The witness described other drains. Mr Garrick objected to evidence as to the condition of a drain which should carry the water from Wright’s drain to the Styx. His Honor overruled the objection. The witness continued his evidence at some length. Edwin Blake, surveyor: Was now faming. Knew the locality. (The witness was describing the drains, when it was decided that the jury should visit the locality and the Court adjourned at 2.30 p.m. till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow.).