LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8470, 22 January 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—IN Banco. Wednesday.

[Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Regina v. E. A. Mackechnte (a solicitor's lien). —This was an argument on a question of law as to whether Mr. E. A. Mackechnie, solicitor, had a right to retain from the Queen as mortgagee of the Kaihu Valley Railway Company, the title deeds of the railway which he obtained on behalf of the company, under his lien as solicitor for the amount of his costs, fees, and expenses, in all £540, incurred in connection with obtaining such deeds. Mr. Button, for the plaintiff, contended that the Crown was entitled to the possession of the documents notwithstanding the defendant's lien, and that if lien did exist it only existed as against the Kaihu Valley Railway Company, and not as against the Crown, and he further contended that the claim of the Crown had priority over all other claims. He quoted a number of authorities in support of his contention. ' Mr. Hesketh, for the defendant, replied to Mr. Button's arguments and the cases quoted, and contended that this was ! a matter for the equitable interference of the Court, even if the defendant had no right of action for the recovery of costs. It was admitted that the documents were rightly in Mr. Mackechnie's possession, and that he had a proper and legal lien on them as against the company. Mr. Hesketh quoted a number of authorities. His Honor asked whether Mr. Mackechnie's costs should not have been paid by the company out of the £47,000 advanced by the Crown. They had expended a'l this money, and had not paid those costs. Was it, he asked, contended that the Crown must pay costs of compensation and solicitors' costs before it could get the title deeds? Mr. Hesketh said the deeds were rightly in Mr. Mackechnie's possession, with the consent of both parties. The circumstances were all known to the mortgagee, there was nothing concealed, and the claims for compensation, in which the j company only could appear, were successi fully resisted, and the amounts claimed reverted to the property held by the mortgagee. This money was earned by the act of the solicitor, who was therefore entitled to his costs, and in equity his claim had a right to be protected. He submitted that the lien not only existed against the company, but against the mortgagee, and he had a right to hold the deeds until his lien was satisfied. Mr. Button said before replying to his friend, he might say that the Crown felt that they could not «pay this claim without a judgment of the Court. It would have to be paid out of unauthorised expenditure, and that was why the claim was resisted, although this was no doubt hard on Mr. Mackechnie. He then proceeded to reply to Mr. Hesketh's arguments. His Honor said he would take time to consider his decision. * POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.I Alleged Forgery.—James Cunningham was charged with on January 10 feloniously with intent to defraud forging a cheque on the National Bank of New Zealand for the payment of £34 10s, purporting to be signed by H. Harris. Mr. Madden appeared for the defence and consented to an adjournment till Monday next. Bail was admitted for the accused himself in £75 and two sureties in £50 each.

Alleged Cruelty to Animals.—James Bonner, Edward Connerford, Cecil Gladstanes, Thomas Brophy, tramcar drivers, were charged with illtreating horses by driving them whilst suffering from sore sides and shoulders. Mr. F. Earl appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Buddie for the defence. These cases were adjourned till half-past two on Friday next. Affiliation Case.—William Baker was charged with failing to provide for the support of his European illegitimate child, of which Ann Wynn was the mother. Dr. Laishley, on behalf of Mr. Napier, appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. H. Shortla'id for the defence. This case was partly heard on the previous day, when the evidence for the prosecution was heard. Mr. Shortland opened his defence by several remarks on the evidence for the prosecution. He said thatafter the prosecution had thrown him over he had naturally enlisted on the side of the defence. It was his own opinion that any other lawyer would have done the same. He was sorry that Mr. Napier was not present on that occasion, as he intended to adopt retaliatory measures by putting his learned friend into the box. Unfortunately Mr. Napier was then on his way to Napier. There was no evidence for the prosecution as to when the defendant had seduced the plaintiff. Annie Robinson deposed that she had seen the complainant in company with the man Heath, both walking in the street and at church. Complainant had remarked that " baby had the same shaped head as Heath." Witness had seen Miss Wynn in company with Baker on board one of the steamers. On Monday evening last Miss Wynn behaved very badly towards Mr. Shortland, calling him a low blackguard, and saying that he had murdered his wife. Witness had no desire to give evidence as she did not wish to be mixed up in the case. Mary Robinson and Maud Baker both gave evidence as to seeing Mr. Heath and the complainant together at nis'ht, walking arm in arm. Mrs. Ann Baker deposed that Mrs. Wynn spoke to her on the ferry boat, and asked her to pay certain confinement fees, but she did not agree to do so. John MacNamaraand John Richards also gave evidence, which closed the case for the defence. Dr. Giles said lie would adjourn the case until Saturday next.