LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XX, Issue 6744, 29 June 1883, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Civii. Sittings. Thursday, Joke 2S. [Before Mr. Justice Gillies.3 ' His Honor took his seat on the'bench'at eleven o'clock. Trustees of Brat t. (Jant and Others. —Mr. E. Hcsketh for plaintiffs Mr. Rochefort for defendants. This matter "has beenbefore the Court ia a variety of forma. /The} evolution of the case is somewhat intricate. Bray brought an equity .suititb¥account against one Adams, a mortgagee of certain property previously belonging. to,him.r ..The: defendant was defeated and cast in costs;" which he could not pay/.; or-v refused to pay. He was made a bankrupt;;" -Having possessed a considerable.-.:.au , iouut--:of : ■ real',' estate, he wa3 interested in varioos family settlements which the trustees in bankruptcy; claimed to administer for. the benefit oE ; the creditors. One of,-the properties way - ill Karangahape-road, another in Queen-street. The defendants wers a married ,daughter of Thomas Bray, her husbaikl;..vihe widow of Bray, and others interested.' : The; object of the suit was to set aside a'deed,v made?in Dec., 1876. Mrs. 15jay further claimed to rank as a creditor upon her husband's* estate for money which he, with her consent, took, out of her separate estate. -ißut against this' it was argued that money so -taken,-by the husband cnuld not be constituted a debt? which {a wife ? could v.. prove -against *i.hia bankrupt estateA\The :main object-'of; the, action was to set aside this deed >of :IS7G; so,, as to bring the properties :'comprise4'in-'it. within the operation of -,the:-Deb*tofs ' and Creditors Act. - It >was /contended : for■: .the plaintiffs that the deed was a"-'-voluntary""-: deed, for which no consideration .was given; —Mr. Rochfort put iu the following, grounds' of defence upjn the legal ;in equity, if a deed be* voluntary- upon/the face ot it, yet, if it be shown, by.extrinsic evidence, that valuable consideration was after-, wards given, the deed would be upheld! 2 That the property jwas' settled : i)ni" Bray's wife and daughter-in-187G'; that the husband having permitted a' mortgagee to sell;; but repurchased, ; the,, estate" came -back ;to, him with all. its'; equities, "s'3.-That-Grace; Oant (daughter) gave valuable,consideration for her interest, and: Bray's itworsons'-also; ; gave valuable consideration.-. :'4:-;That-Mrs.; Bray had herself paid upwards of on the property.—Mr. Hesketh co'ntended that' the questions were : in Was '-the deed for valuable consideration; ; with' a view ; . to the deed ot April, ,1879 ?, " . 2.'.;: Was the; order made in bankruptcy/a. valid, order ? 3.Can a husband-be -charged'-as: a debtor.-for'; money received 'from : .> : his.,-wife's estate with her permission.—His-Honor was. > of opinion that this case "was a'-properone to, < be tried by the Court without 'a -jury. Asthe question involved was purely, a question of law, it could be argued at the next'sittmg- ; in banco,' after the criminal, .'sittings of the ;■ circuit 1 Courtr:,'The following;.is- the main; ■ question to be determined, ."Whether,the' >. settlement' under.the,deed'of 1579, made>infavour, of Sarah' -Bray; aud, the defendants;:. , Grace Cant and Jamesfßray,.as .purchasers, . of the property, in,good faith,s arid for valuable ~ consideration.-"—Th'e ; -further hearing- ■- was adjourned accordingly.: - The civil sittiogV:wore. then adjourned to the 11th of,; July:next;'

IN BANCO. .-Application.' -.for'-'.Mandamus.—Mr; E. Eeaketli applied,-,ior;<a- writ of mandamus directed to the. Cmef ■ Judge of the Native | Lands Court, .Mr. ,J; Jfi; "Macdonald, commanding him to show cause why he refused to insert nn a certificate ;of title to certain native lands the names'of six persons who had been ignored; ..ivHe s'iid.'he had only-just; received the letttrsfrom Cambridge, requests ing him to make the' application.. Ho could not therefore enter into details. It appeared however, to have been :a:.voluntary ment on the "part vofr'tlie -petitioners to the Native Lauds Court; sThe six persona who. had been ignored; seemed .to kuow nothing of the proceedings, :;-and 'they, -were-'ignorant*' altogether.— His, Honor : Has notice of: this; application been given' to the -Ghief Judge and other parties Li concerned Mr: E. Has-: keth : Having read the letters, I should say not.—His Honor : I think due: notice should be given.—Mr.;llesketh:: It shall be done as your Honor directs; .and I shall renew the application.—Orderedaccordingly.

R. ll.i. CO ORT.—:Thcksday;

[Ucforo 11. G.' Seth'Smithi Esq., It:MO The woekly sitting of the Resident Jilagis; trate's Court was heldrfor. the, adjustment of: small debt cases. The following ciises were disposed of :—v .

Juijoments for (Plaintiffs.—ln the following cases judgment was given for plaintifls by defaultA^Laybourn v. Hewlett, £14 18s lOd (costs;: £3. 6s)!; Union Bank v; John Higginson,,£4,ls,7d (costs £2 4s) Jas. Hill v. W; SS."Brown, ;, £2?Gs-.i6d-.(costs £1--2s-6d); Wm. Sloan v. Jas. O'KeefTe, £4 Gs lOd, (costs £l ;.]Ss) ;.: Hancock and Co. v. Wv Williams, £14 4s (costs £2 13s); David Fort v.-Major.-Minnett; £G -Is--Gd (costs -20d Gd) W. H. Fenton.v.: P;"H. Foster, 10s (costs £1 3a Gd); \V; H.'Fenton vi A. W'. Bromlield, 18s (costs £1,3 a 6d):;;-Joscph Hart v. Albert Eagleton, £10 (costs £1 17s); Richard A; Glover v;*Samueh*MacKinlcy; £3 ss. (ccsts £1 2s6d) ;.- Wilkins "aDd (Jo. v. Albert .Eagleton, ISs Gd, (costs £1' 2s (id) ; Christopher Greenway v. Jacob Bauer, £1 12s Gd (eosts-Kl 3a Gd). .Cowan: v. W, Patterson.- 'J he amount of indebtedness was £7 ; 103 4d; Mr. Burton appeared for judgment creditor; An order was made for payment ofitliordubt by instalments ■ ot us a-week,'for ; .sin:,default:. ten days' lin-' prisonmcnt.- -F: : ; Dawson v t Charles Hopkins.;; The' judgment was for £4 9s 6d,. of which £2 had been paid: -Mr; S. Hesketh for the judgment- creditor. 1 An .order was:' made , for payment of -the' balaiice ; withiii afortnight,- or in default, five days' imprisonment.:. Holland.and.'.Portzer-V'; AV. .Dryland; Tho debt was *£3 0s : 4d:' - Mr. !■'. Cooper appeared for the . judgment ..creditor.lßs had- been;-' paul since the- judgment obtained.." An .order was made for payment - of . 10s sa- :inonth, or in default five i days'vimprisonment. J. Young v: . John ißryant; :: The-debt jwas; £2 0s lOd. Mr. Smith.;,appearedj for the judgment creditor. « The -defendant -was examined as to his aneans. ::. He:. ofleredi to pay £1 a. month,. whichtwas acceptedj and au order was made accordingly,,.with : the alternative of five days' imprisonment;

Charles Grose v. Joust Codliv.—Mr; Theopliilus Cooper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. _££. Campbell-for the defence. The claim was for £2. os.usMr. ' Campbell took" exception to the;; particulars of account as being inconsistent ;,but:His.-Worship said lie could give no decision till the evidence was before him. The: claim.-was for £1 wages; and 35a fori: wrongful .dismissal. Plain till was a waiter in the employ of the defendant, ~. thev proprietor o£- the Koyal Mail Hotel. The plaintifl said he had' been • subpoenaed to attend the Police : Court' in the * case,'"Heaps.. v ; , Browning; and was detained all day;- and-on Ins returnhe found that another waiter was advertised for. The defendant said: he had not seen the plaintiff on the day- in question, and had he come to the place ho would have discharged him with a week's notice; The Head waiter had no power, to.- discharge . any servants. No one but witness had that power; He had never discharged him;i:;and ioj. was- two:days; afterwards that he , came and-demanded Ills' wages. The defence was that ..plaintifl had dismissed himself by leaving his employ--inent, and not returning to- his? work on his return from the Court.* Tliomas Stevens, the head waiter,'- gave:- similar evidence; I Judgment was given for -plaiutifl for £1 15s i and costs.

Mary Mullally.v. -, John' Lutton.— Mr. E. Cooper for plaintifl, and Mr. Keetley for the defence. Tho claim was for 10s, money lent in October last,;-on that it was to be paid .back-mv two-days. The question was raised , by .Mr: Iveetley as to whether plain tiff, being-a 1 marnod'womau, could sue, and that the dubtiis due, if duo at all, to Mrs. Mullally'sv.husbaud, .but :Mr.; Cooper contended that ifc : was too late : now toset that up, that it shouldihave been pleaded before as a defence, of nvbich notico should have beeu given; :• Plaintiff was nonsuited costs. 15a (id. ... --

John tiimi.viv.- sßobeii? ;E. Cooper for the plaintiff. The claim was for £1 9a. The plaintifl - was 1 a" earpenter, auxl the claim was for work;done<in. April last—• 4 days 74 hours at-:.105"a.-day. One pound had been paid. :.The defence was that-plam< tiff was employed to - make rcertam sas-h. frames at 4s each, Dot onvuages:. Judgment was given for plaintiff with costs. ' i