LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVIII, Issue 8610, 4 July 1891, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREBtE COURT.—In Chambeks, FIIIDAY. [Befor&Eßa Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Administration.—Qn the motion of Mr. Buddie, letters of administration were granted in the estate of William Wernham (deceased), and on the motion of Mr. George administration was granted in the estate of Thomas MoLaughlin (deceased). Motion to Shu, Estatk.—Mr. Hesketh moved for leave to sell the real estate of Edward John Parr (deceased). Thia application had stood over from Tuesday in order that Wis Honor might consider whether he could grant power to obtain a loan by mortgage on the property, an apple farm, to pay to the eldest daughter her proportion, instead of selling up the farm. Hie Honor said he had read the new affidavit, in which tho eon said he hoped to buy tbe estate. Tho order was granted. Mr. Hesketh swgge&fced that tbe property be sold in two lots, as one lot of 50 acres was unproductive. The order was made accordingly, the property to be sold by auction after giving fourteen days' notice in each of tho Auckland daily newspapers, the sale to be either in one lot or in parcels.

Baldebston v. CAMP3EJ.L.—Mr. Mahony moved that teems of decree in this case be settled. M/r. Alexander appeared for the defendant. *IWe case had been decided ab the recent.-civil sittings. It was an action for accof/nts to be taken. Mr. Alexander said he agreed with the terms of the decree, except the costs, which were unusual. Mr. IVlahony said that His Honor had give,n judgment for plaintiff with costa on the lower scale, and he had drafted the decree accordingly. His Honor made the decree, allowing coste up to judgment. Claim for Compensation.—ln the-matter of the Public Works Acb, ISB2, and the claim for componsion of George Hill, junior- and Rowland Hill, against the Waikato «Couufcy Council, Mr. Tole moved for an of time for filing notice. Mr. Kesketh appeared for the County Council. iThis application had been allowed to staud •over from last Tuesday, when Captain McPherson, county clerk, appeared in person to represenb the County Council, but Mr. Tolo having taken exception to his being allowed to appear, he consulted Mr. Hesketh, who obtained an adjournment, in oi-der that ho might bo iuKU-ueted on the facts. Since than, Captain MePhorsoa had filed an affidavit. Mr. Tole submitted that if there had been any laches at all on tho part of the plaintiffs they were very slight, ] and he contended that? they were entitled I to an extension of time, and quoted authorities to show that it ougfht to be allowed. He hardly thought his friend would oppose the motion, as Sit was refused thero would be an absolute failure of justice. He was quite sure no Minister ot Public Works would take advantage of a mistake of this kind, and no respectable public body should tio so. Mr. Hosketh merely lefb the matter to Hie Honor. His Honor said he thought the objection sh&uld not have been taken, but ho would grant the extension of time for 14 days from this date on payment of £2 2s costs.

Connelly v. Bkierly.—Mr, Heskobh 'aioved to .make a charging order nisi heroin absolute. There was no appearance to oppose the motion. Mr. Hesketh, however, pointed out that tho notice bad been served on the chairman of tho Road Board, but ih was not served pereonrvlly as required by the Act. This His Honor h*Jd was insufficient, and allowed the application to atand over pending service of notice in proper form.

Ehrboteeed v. 1/YXCH. — Mr. Baume moved on summons to defendant to show cause why terms of decree should nob be fixed. Mr. Theo. Cooper appeared with Mr. Baume in support of the motion, and Dr. ljaishley for the defendant to oppose the motion. Mr. Cooper .said the judgment Mr. Justice Gilli«s was in favour of the plaintiff, the terms of the decree to bo settled ia chambers, and he gave certain reasons. Although fcho Couro of Appeal upset; the reasons given by Mr. Justice Gillies, they did not disturb his judgments. Hie Honor was surprised that this matter had been allowed to stand over for such a length of time. Mr. Justice Gillies lived for three months after judgment had been given in this case. He would give no better decree than Mr. Justice Gillies would have given on the 2nd of April, 18S9, before tho mattor hail been taken to tho Court of Appeal. Mr. Cooper said after that expression of opinion ho would confer with Dr. Laishley as to the terms of tho decree. Dr. Laishley objected to any decree at all, as he contended the decree had been abandoned because there had been gross delay of over two years, and ho quoted from Chancery Practice on Decrees in support of his contention. He contended the defendant was prejudiced by reason of plaintiff not drawing up the decree and giving defendant an opportunity of appealing, and in tho second place by their not acting with reasonable promptitude, so that the terms of the decree might be drawn up by Mr. Justice Gillies, in accordance with the viewe which ho then held. He submitted that the summons must be dismissed, on the ground that the decree had been abandoned. Mr. Cooper asked that the application might stand over until next chamber day, in order that, after His Honor's expression of opinion, he might consult Mr. EhranfrieU as to whether ho would proceed with the motion. Tho defendant would be ia no way prejudiced. Dr. Laishley did nob oppose, and the application for an adjournment was granted.

Re John Meabs Bidgood (a bankrupt). •—Mr. Jaines Russell moved on Hummons to the Official Assignee to show causo why the order mado by the Registrar at Gislx>rnc, on tli3 13 th" of March, 1891, should not be set aside. Mr. Tanks appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. Theo. Cooper, instructed by Air. Lusk, to show cause. The application was made under the Bankruptcy Act to vary an order made by tine Registrar at Gisborne, in Chambers. The first objection \va» that the jurisdiction of the Registrar to make the order should be shown on the face of the order, as he had only jurisdiction during the absence or illness of the judge, and that Mr. Tanks contended should be shown on the face of the order. He quoted English authorities in support of hid contention. Another point was that the order had not been made an order of the Court, but a personal order, although it bore the seal of the Court of Bankruptcy. Ho also submitted that it was not an order which should have been granted on an ex parte application, as it was an order practically setting , aside a Viill of sale, as it ordered the Official Assignee to lake possession of certain goods included, in a bill of sale, and which were claimed by Mrs. Bidgood as her personal property, and which had not been in the husband's possession either before or after his bankruptcy, and thnt she .had no noiiceof tho intention of the Official Assignee to apply for au order to seize these goods. The bill of salo, he argued, could nob be impugned under the Bankruptcy Act, and to impugn it under tho Act of Elizabeth, it would be necessary that an action should bo taken to sot aside the bill of sale. He also pointed out that tho warrant did not bear the seal of the Court, as required by section 30 of the Act, and was merely signed by tho Registrar. Ho submitted on these grounds that the order should be discharged. Mr. Cooper replied to the three objections taken to tho order, and submitted that the casa quoted did not apply ; and under our laws it was not necessary that jurisdiction should bo shown on tho faco of tho order, although it was necossary under the English Act. His Honor said tho universal practice had beon to stato tho jurisdiction on an order made by tho Registrar. As to tho order not being an order of tho Court, Mr. Coopoi' submitted that the seal of the Court being attached was sufficient, and the words, " Given under my hand," was surplusage, and could bo dispensed with. As to tho ex partc nature of the proceedings, he submitted that it was the duty of the Assignee to make the application ex parte, and that it would have been improper to proceed on notice to any person affected by tho order. He quoted authorities in support of this view. His Honor stated that theso were nil cases against the mortgagoe, but Mrs. Bidgood claimed to be the absolute owner. Mr. Cooper submitted that these authorities wero sufficient to show that the order was properly made ex parte. Ho quoted from the Alarriod Wenion's Property Act, sec. 5, to show that money lojib by a wife to her husband should be treated as his property, and section 12 to show thafc if tho property given by deed of gift, but remaining in his order and disposition, ib was his property. In this case the bankrupt in 1884 made a gift of all hie property to his wife under a

bill of sale, but that bill of sale lapsed in 1889 for want of renewal of registration, and this rendered the original registration, of no value. Hβ admitted ttab there waa an omission in regard to the warrant nob being signed, bat that was nob taken as a ground of objection. Hβ submitted thab under all the circumstances the order should not be set aeide. Mr. Tanks replied. His Honor ruled that the order must be discharged as being irregular, on the, ground that there wag no authority shown. on the face of it. No costs would be allowed. In Banoo. Motion to Set Aside an Order.—ln the Chattels Transfer Act, 1889, and the application of Martin McDermott to seb aside an order rectifying the registration of an order of a bill of sale by Jonas and another to Alfred Walker, Mr. Burton appeared in support of the motion, and Mr. Theo. Cooper to oppose. The case had been argued at considerable length before His Honor on the previous day, and His Honor then reserved his decision. Ho now gave judgment, dismissing the motion, aa ho was of opinion that the applicant for the order was within his legal rights. No costs were allowed. R.M. COURT.—Feiday. [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.I ' Judgment Summons Case. —Brown, Barrett, and Co. v. Abraham Bronland, olaitn £42 14s 5d on a judgment summons. Order lor payment in li days, or two months' imprisonment. George E. Cozens v. James Larktns.— Claim for possession of tenement. Order made for possession or or before the 11th instant. Thomas Lees v. Enoch Bond, Sen.— Claim £3 10s, the value of a quantity of gum alleged to be the property of the plaintiff and converted by the defendant to his own uso. Mr. Devore for the plaintiff, and Mr. Cotter for the defendant. Mr. Dovore, in opening, said the plaintiff and the defendant were both storekeepers and guui buyers, carrying on business at the Wade, within 100 yards of each other. The plaintiff's acting man waa hia 6on, who, on the Ist June last, went to the diggers' camp and purchased a sack of gum from a, man named Moses, a Fijian. Ha gave £2 10s 2d for the gum, and obtained a receipt from Moses. He was on horseback at fehe time and could not 'take the gum away, but left it in the custody of another digger named Petersen. On the following day the gum was lemoved from the camp by the defendant's carter, and on the plaintiffs son claiming it the carter refused to give it up, bub took ib to the store of Bond Brothers. Tho case for the defence was that the gum had bsen purchased by one of the Bond Brothers from Moses, and further that in any case the wrong person, Enoch Bond, sen., had been sued, the business being one carried en entirely by his sons, one in which the defendant had had\no interest for a number of years. After hearing evidence at considerable length His Worship gave judgment for the defendant with costs £6 17s, upon the ground-thafche was not the proper person to be sued. Aβ that point seemed to be conclusive Jffis Worship did nob consider it. necessary*o go into the question ns to whether the gum hod been sold to plaintiff or to the defendant.

POLICE COUP.T.—Friday. [Before Messrs. \V. C. W r a!ker and Captain Worsp. JSp.'e]. Drunkenness.—One first offender was fined 5s and costs, oriri default, 24 hours' imprisonment. Annie Robertson, an habitual drunkard, was sentenced to three months with hard labour. Hvenry McGinn, was charged with being drunk and with resisting. Constable Stunyer, and was fined 20s or 7 days for drunkenness, and for resisting the police £5 or two months' imprisonment.

A Wandering Cow.—Joseph Buddie was fined Is aud costs for'allowing a cow to wander afc Devon port. Alleged Forgery.—George Willdnahaw was charged with having, on the 20th June, feloniously, with intentrto defraud, forged a cettain order for thai payment of £3 10s drawn upon tho Union Bank of Australia, aud with having uttered the same well knowing ifc to be forged. Charles Beuth, assistant* at Hannah's boob shop, Queen-stroet, deposed that on Saturday, the 2Ooh Juno, he saw the accused at the shop, where he purchased a pair of shoes, and in payment handed witness the cheque produced. Witness handed the cheque to the manager, Mr. Stone. The cheque bore the signature of Mr. G. F. Mellars. Accused endorsed the cheque, and received the shoes, and £3 0s 6d in change. Samuel Stone deposed that he received ths cheque produced from the previous witness. He asked the accused to endorse it, and he did so. Accused received £3 0s 6d as change. Accused stated that Mr. Mellars was a mill-owner. Witness presented the cheque at bhe Colonial Bank, but it was returned to him. George Frederick Mellars, sawmill owner, Taupiri, deposed that the accused bad been in his employ for about 13 months, having left towards the latter end of May last. Witness was accustomed to bank with the Bank of Nevf Zealand. The cheque produced was not his. He had never signed it, nor had he seen it before. The signature was a good imitation of his. A. H. J. Leys, ledgerkeeper at the Union Bank of Australia, deposed that ho remembered the cheque produced being received from the Colonial Bank, but was returned with the remark, "Referred to drawer." Detective Kirby deposed that he arrested the accused. Witness showed him the.cheque produced at the Police Station. Ho examined it, and said it bore his endorsement. He also said that he had signed the cheque. He took it out of his own cheque-book, which he afterwards destroyed. He further stated that he had got into this trouble through drink. Prisoner reserved his defence, and was duly committed for trial.