LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVII, Issue 8195, 5 March 1890, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT^—Judge's Chambers . • Tuesday. . [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Probate.—Probate was granted to the executors in the wills of Bond) Jftxmkaety. ' Catherine Sanderson, John Carey, ana David Thompson. Appointment of Tbcstbb.ln the matter of the estate of Michael Tobin, deceased, Mr. Mahony moved for the appointment of Charles Ed ward Reoner as • a trustee and executor. The application was granted, and a further order was made vesting the lands, subject to the trust, in Mr, Reuner, This latter order was made in terms of section 45 of the Trustee Act. NATIONAL BANK OF jfnw Zeamxd v. Joshua Jostes.—Dr. L&iahlay moved on Eiimmons to show cause why ati order of Mr. Justioe Conolly, dated »th October, 1889, should not be got aside.* Mr. E. Heeketh appeared to show cause. The questions ;at issue were as to whether the order was ; properly made. Dr. Laiahley referred His Honor to rale 567, which provided for a case in which no torn of procedure was laid down. His Honor said Dr. Laiahley would first have to show that no form of procedure was provided. They, had nothing to do with English practice. Dr. Laishley quoted the rule which was also that of the Supreme Court of New Zealand, and he proceeded to cite authorities bearing on an exparte applica-. tion „ that execution might issue, and pointed out that unless there was a change of parties notice should be given to the defendant before the writ was issued. In this oase the defendant, Mr. Jones, had filed an affidavit that the judgment had 1 been ; satisfied. Dr. Laishley contended • that there was nothing in rule 340 to justify ! the Bank in making an application ex parti, j and the fact that the defendant had made an' affidavit that the judgment had been satisfied showed that it was a case in which the defendant should have had notice. Hie j Honor said the-affidavit was made under peculiar circumstances, 4$ montlia after the order was made, and brought before him at Gtsborne, where it was known he had not the papers before him. Mr. Heeketh said he had only seen the affidavit a quarter of an hour pefore, <and if any value was attached to it he would ask that the Bank should have an opportunity of saying whether or not the judgment was satisfied, ; He pointed out that the Common Law Pro- ] cedure Act was not in all cases followed by I the Supreme Court rules, and he referred His Honor to rule 106, pointing out that there was no corresponding one in the Common Law Procedure Act. In this case the judgment had been given more than six years ago, but had not been satisfied, and this was shown by an affidavit of Mr. King, manager of the New Plymouth branch of the National Bank. Dr. Lai«hley in reply contended that as more than six years had elapsed notice should have been given to the defendant of an application for a writ of revival of judgment, and he quoted English authorities in support of his contention.. Mr. Hesketh called attention to an affidavit of Mr. Samuel Hesketh, stating that a voluminous correspondence 'had taken place with the defendant and solicitors acting for him, but no objection was taken to the validity of the order until February, and he (Mr. Hesketh) contended that this was a waiver of any such objection, His Honor said he was of opinion that he had the power to make the order, although six year? had elapsed einoe the date of the ment, Mr. Justice Gillies had made an order on ex parte application after six years had elapsed since judgment issued. It was still open to Mr. Jones to show that the judgment was satisfied, and he then had his right of action, but he was not prejudiced by want of notice. The summons was dismissed with costs, £2 2s. j In Bankruptcy. Thomas J. Made Humphreys. — Mr. ' Hesketh moved, on the petition of James Rae, a creditor, that Thomas James Mace ■ Humphreys, solicitor, he adjudicated a bankrupt. Mr. Humphreys opposed the motion. The petition snowed that a writ of sale had been issued for £95, and returned nulla bom, Mr. Humphreys drew attention to an affidavit filed by him on Thursday lest, showing that he had a good cause of action against James Rae, the petitioning creditor, and he called His Honor's attention to the cases re Burke and in re Slater. His Honor said this was nob an ''analogous case, for in those cases quoted there was a Question of taking accounts, He had looked into the aotion on which Mr. Humphreys relied, and found it was not a matter of accounts, but for damages for a slander against Mr. Roe, and of two for libels by Rao's wife. j There was nothing to show that this oase \ would be more successful than the former one, m which the debtor failed. There i were no grounds shown in the affidavit, why the order of adjudication should not issue. . He would defer making the order until Friday, on the understanding that if the money was not then paid, the order of adjudication should issue. Mr. Hesketh asked that the costs of the petition should be paid, sis well as the £95, and His Honor consented.

POLICE COURT.— [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Drunkenness. — Henry Morgan, for a second offence, was fined 20s, or, in default, three days' imprisonment. Alleged Assault. Hamilton was charged with assaulting Cecilia Williams on the 27fch February. As there was no appearance of the informant the case was struck out. Alleged Gambling. — George Francis Brimblecombe and Robert Blaikie were charged with unlawfully playing in a public place —to wit, Whitford Park, Turanga Creek, on the 12th February, with a certain instrument—to wit, a black board a game of chance, contrary to the Gaming and Lotteries Act, 1881. They were further charged with unlawfully selling certain tickets by which permission was given to have an interest in the said lottery on the same occasion. Two further charges of a similar nature were also preferred against the defendants. Mr. H. Williamson appeared for the prosecution, and Dr. Laishley for the defence. On the application of Dr. Laishley the case was adjourned for a fortnight. . ■