LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4254, 2 July 1875, Page 3

LAW AND POLIC E.

SUPREME COURT.—I.v Banco. Thursday, Jclt 1. [Before Ills Honor Mr. Jnstico Gillies 1 ITis HoNon sat in Banco this morning, and disposed of the following business : — AVniTK v. Macfaki.ane.—This caso had been for .1 considerable time before the Court. An application had been made to dismiss the action for non-prosecution. Mr. Hcsketh now moved that the action bo dismissed.— Order made accordingly. Habeas Cori-us (cx parie). —Mr. Rees applied for a writ to bring up the body of one Joseph Naylor, now a prisoner in Mount Eden gaol, under a "joint warrant of commitment signed by Thomas Beckham, Esq., K.H., under a conviction with ono Mai-y Orr, for an offence against the Vagrancy Act, by being found without lawful excuse, late at night, upon the "promises" of ono Reynolds. Tho learned counsel, in making iJ.o application, ;uud tberc could not be a " joint offence'" by two or more persone against tho Vagrancy Act. Tho section of the Act under which these persons wero convicted was very specific,—it enumerated the places where persons being found at night without lawful excuse would constitute a breach of the Act. These vrere, nny warehouse, stable, out-heuse, 4tc. Tho word " premises" might mean an uncovered place, out tho section of tho Act pointed to gome covered as well as enclosed space This application was mado without any view te ulterior proceedings. The conviction was dated tho 2nd day of Juno. The commitment was illegal because if there could be no joint offence against the Act, there could be no " joint" conviction and no "joint ,, committal. If two persons were found without lawful excuse in one of the places dencribod in the Act, there would be an offenco committed by each, and therefore two offences, and not one only. But tho word "premises" might mean othc than any of those p'acea described, and there could not be a, joint offence where the partiet, if guilty of an

offence, were each guilty of a separato offence. His Honor was of opinion that the learned counsel had made out sufficient to entitle him to the writ.—The writ was made returnable at 10.30 a.m. on Monday morning. Smith v. Thomas and others (The Queen of Beauty Gold Mining Company).— Mr. MacCormick for the plaintiff, and Mr. Hesketh for the defendants. The action was brought to recover £16,000 damages upon groundg already stated. Tho defendants pleaded that tho agreement was bad, and the plaintiffs demurred to tho plea. Hie Honor last Court-day allowed the demurrer, and expressed his wish that the point (a purely legal one) under discussion should be submitted to the Court of Appeal for its decision.—Mr. Hesketh now moved for leave to appeal under the 24th and 4th sections of the Court of Appeal Act, ISG2. —Mr. MacCormick, in opposing the application, asked the Court if it should grant the order to modify it, so as to allow of such terms in it as would enable the plaintiff to proceed to trial. He reminded the Court that its decision upon tho demurrer involved purely a point of law. But there were also issnes of fo-ot in the cause upon which the plaintiff would have a right to go to trial, nis Honor sal lit would be a vast expense to both sidds if they were to go to trial pending tho decision of the Court of Appeal, which, when given, would settle the action altogether.—Mr. MacCormick thought in the alternative now proposed the cost would be equally great. The Court of Appeal would not sit until November, so that the plaintiff would bo thrown over till January. —His Honor : No issues have been settled as yet. You could not go to trial at tho approaching civil sittings. Nothing, therefore, could be done until October. And then you would have to wait the decision of the Court of Appeal in November.—Mr. Hesketh said that tho judgment upon the demurrer went upon tho construction of the agreement. The Court would alter the whole position of tho defendants if it wore to comply with the learned counsel's request. Even if the issues of fact were found for tho plaintiff, thero would still be the issue of law to be decided by tho Court of Appeal. Hie Honor said the rulo generally was that the point of law should be decided first; it was more corvenient. During tho trial, points of law wero constantly arising, and it would be most inconvenient that ono which went to the root of tho whole causo should be standing over for judgment. Hβ thought tho order must bo made, and leave given to appeal, defendants to give security for costs to the extent of £100. — Order made accordingly. Aitken v. CnKESKMAJf.—This wae a petition by the plaintiff, upon which a debtor's summons under the Bankruptcy Act had issued, directed to tho defendant, with a riew to further proceedings.—Mr. Hesketh appeared for the petitioning creditor, and Mr. Rees for tho debtor.—Mr. Rees said that Mr. Chceseman was in attendance. Tho Act prescribed that the debtor was entitled to examine the petitioning creditor upon the allidavits. Tho debt was upon a dishonored promissory note for £100. Tho transaction took place uicfc years ago. The case for the defendant waa. "that it was understood between the parties that this £100 would never bo asked for ; that the circumstances were capable of explanation to shew such was the case.—His Honor said if the defendant desired to answer the jiutitioning creditor upon the examine a day should bo appointed for that purpose. —The further hearing was accordingly adjourned to tho 15th of July.