SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXVII, Issue 9700, 14 April 1892, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, April- 13. ■ (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denmston.) ; RE STDENHAN LICENSING COMMITTEE. This was a motion, on behalf of William James, formerly licensee of the Crown Hotel, Sydenham, whose application for .a’ renewal of his license was refused by the Committee at its annual meeting, for a writ of certiorari removing into the Supreme Court the proceedings in connection" with the said application. Mr Harper appeared for the applicant, and Mr Caygill for the Committee. Mr Harper asked that the matter should be allowed to stand over till after the sitting of the Court of Appeal. Mr Caygill objected. Mr Harper pointed out that there was a similar matter pending from Wanganui, and that the pending appeal of the. Licensing Committee from his Honor’s recent decision practically covered the same ground. : He remarked that the effects of the action of the Committee lasted for three years, and that consequently if any injustice were done to a party, thereby, it would continue for over two years from the present time. The matter, therefore, was one of great importance, and as it was practically on the point of being settled by the decision of the Court of Appeal, it was only fair that the present application should be allowed to stand over till after that decision. Mr Caygill said that the reason urged by Mr Harper for the adjournment of the question applied equally to launching the action. If it were premature to decide the application before, the decision of the Court of Appeal it was also premature to make it. The other side had disregarded that consideration at the outset, and was not, he submitted, entitled to take advantage of it now. The matter had been delayed for a very long time, and the Committee was, he considered, entitled to have it treated as separate from the appeal, and disposed of now. His Honor said that as the application had been allowed to stand over for so long, waiting for the decision of the Court of Appeal, it would not be weight to strike it off the list now that what was practically the same question was on the eve of being considered by that Court., The reason urged in support of the adjournment was a very proper one. The application would, therefore, be adjourned till after the sitting of the Court of Appeal. ADJOURNMENTS. The following motions were adjourned by consent till after the sitting of the Court of Appeal:— Owles v. Lovick.—Motion to set aside judgment, and enter up judgment for defendant. Mr Byrne. Paintiu (appellant) v. Arkle (respondent).—Case on appeal from E.M. Court, Christchurch. Mr Bruges. Be Hugh Wright, a lunatic.—To set aside orders. Mr Spackman. [Per Press Association.! AUCKLAND, April 13. Counsel, on behalf of Messrs Sharland and Company, appealed against the decision in the recent Customs case on the ground of misdirection by the Judge, and that the answers found by the Jury were so defective .that the judgment of the Court which followed ought not to have been pronounced upon them. His Honor said he would give a written judgment after his return from the Court of Appeal, it not being intended to take the case to the next Appeal Court. , DUNEDIN, April 13.

In the motion for a ne w trial in the case of Gengev. the North Otago Agricultural and Pastoral Association, after heating the legal argument Mr Justice Williams said he would take time to consider the question of practice, and consult with the other Judges. It always seemed the case in. troublesome questions of negligence that the' amount at issue was small.. .