SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

New Zealand Herald, Volume X, Issue 2906, 22 May 1873, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 21

[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Johnston.] The Court sat iu banco this morning, and disposed of the following business : — Mom Maungak.uii v. Macfaulane. — Mr. MacCormick moved that, upon certain matters of evidence which were referred to

the Registrar, the Registrar might be permitted to examine witnesses viva voce.—Order made in terms of the application. Mokiiin v. JRofata. —The plaintiff in this action was Mr. William Morrin, whose death, in CanuHa, was recently announced.—Mr. Hesketli said although there was 110 reason to doubt tho stat«ment of plaintiff'death being correct, yet there was hardly such ovidence of it before the Court as would enablo the Court to decide the points in dispute. Geahajh t. Thomas. — Mr. MacCormick for the plaintiff, Mr. Hesketh and Mr. Elliot Meyer for the defendant. This was a motion for a rulo absolute for a new trial, for which a rule nisi had been obtained at the last sitting of the Court. —Mr. MacCormick appeared iu Bupport of the rule ; Mr. Hesketh showed causo against the rule. The cause was heard at tho last civil sittings of the Circuit Court and verdict given for the defendants. Tho plaintiff is lessee under natives of certain land at Crrahaiiietown, and tho defendants had ocI cupied tho ground as miners by virtuo of miners' rights. The quostion of ownership by plaintiff was not set out in tho form of | action laid before tho jury, and the whole question at issue turned upon the actual possession at the time of the trespasses, alleged by the plaintiff to have been committed by the defendants. — Mr. Elliot Meyer was heard at length on the same side. The facts were that tho defendants had tho land by depositing mullock upon it, and the plaintiff had erected a fence across the laud, which tho defendants pulled down. —Tho question of ownership being withdrawn, at the suggestion of the learned judge that tho real issue between tho parties was actual possession, the jury found that defendants had u possession inconsistent with possession by the plaintiff. But there was evidence of tho fence having been put up by the plaintiff before possession by the defendants ; and that the pulling down that fence was a breaking and entering upon plaintiff's land.—Mr. MacCormick contended that the existence of this fence was possession. There were several arguments arising out of the pleading.—Mr. MacCormick had uot concluded his argumont when the Court rose at I 5 o'clock.

Haiieis y. Macpablane.—Mr. Reos asked His Honor when be would be prepared to give judgment in thiß case? —Hi« Honor said he had prepared bis judgment, but ho did not know there was any hurry.—Mr. Kees said that the trespasses wore being continued by ike defendant's peoplo from day to day.— His Honor requested the learned counsel to mention the cuso again to-morrow (this day).