LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9287, 24 August 1893, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.— BANCO. Wkdnesday. [Before Ills Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.]

Interpretation of a Will.—ln the matter of the Trustee Act and the will of Thomas Hancock, Mr. Buddie moved for directions as to the interpretation of the wilL By this will the testator bequeathed to Jiis widow, for her use during her life, a certain house, and the question for the Court was whether under this bequest she must continue to live and reside in the house, or whether she had power to lease or let it. Mr. Buddie appeared for the petitioner, Mr. Cooper for Mrs. Hancock, Mr. Cotter for the children of Harriet Jagger, a daughter of the testator, and Mr. Clayton for John Hancock and his three sisters, children of the testator. Mr. Clayton said it was inconvenient to go on with the argument that day, and it was suggested that ib be taken on Friday after Chambers. His Honorsaidhedid notyet know what chamber business was set down for Friday, but if he could not take it on that day it must stand over for three weeks. By consent the argument was fixod for Friday, at two o'clock. Mackkciinie v. Hobson County Council.— This was a motion brought by the Attorney-General on the relation of Edmund A. Mackechnie for a writ of injunction. Mr. Cooper appeared for the relator, and Mr. Clayton for the defendants. By arrangement the motion was allowed to stand over till the first banco day after the civil sittings. S. L. Wriout v. Lang and Others.— Mr. Buddie moved, on behalf of Messrs. Courtney and Iloystead, that the action be dismissed. Mr. Coleman made a uimilar application on behalf of Edmund de Breen Campbell, one of the defendants. In the same action Mr. Tole made a similar application on behalf of John Lang, W. Innes, Frank A. Harris, W. A. Tait, YV". Barnard, and Etienne Morel, and Mr. Cooper appeared for Thomas Cochran, another defendant. Dr. Laishley, instructed by Messrs. Dignan and Armstrong, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr. Buddie said that when this matter was previously before the court, his Honor expressed the opinion that this action could nob be dismissed against two defendants. He (Mr. Buddie) had therefore served notice that to-day he would apply for leave to amend the motion, and to apply to the court to dismiss the action. It was agreed that the four motions should be heard together, counsel in each being allowed to appear. Dr. Laishley said he should object to any application on behalf of E. de B. Campbell, as he had no locus standi, nob having been served. Mr. Tole, who in this case appeared for Mr. Coleman, said Mr. Campbell had filed a warrant to defend. His Honor said the issue of the writ, not the service, constituted the action. Mr. Buddie

iii opening said the motion was to dismiss the action in terms of notice of motion on the ground that plaintiff had failed to comply with the order of the court to give security for coats. He stated that this was the second action between the parties on the same cause of action. The first was brought in March, 1892, and this was dismissed, and the second was brought in September of the same year, when an order was made that security should bo given for costs. The affidavit showed that this order had not been complied with, and more than ten months had elapsed since the order was made, but no steps had been taken by the plaintiff, and he submitted that the action should not be allowed to stand over 1 the defendants indefinitely. Mr. Tolo said that practically 17 months had elapsed since the first action was brought in March, 1892, and the second was brought in September, and no action had been taken by the plaintiff to give security for costs or to bring on his action, and he asked His Honor to dismiss the action as a whole.

Mr. Cooper also addressed the Court), submitting thab there was an entire absence of bonafides on the part of the plaintiff to show that he intended to proceed with the suit. His Honor said the principal point which Dr. Laishloy had to meet was that in no part of the affidavits was it stated that plaintiff was prepared to give security. Dr. Laishley then addressed the Court. He admitted that the application would not be unreasonable had there not been intervening circumstances. The affidavits showed that there had been ati unfortunate misunderstanding between Mr, Armstrong and Mr. Tolo as to their recollection of what transpired as to an arrangement for a postponement which Mr. Armstrong alleged was for the convenience of Mr. Tole, and he submitted a further time should be allowed to come in and ask the Registrar to adjust the security. His Honor said more was required than to adjust the security, the security must be given. Dr. Laishley said he was nob prepared to eay that Mr. Armstrong would give security for costs, but he asked the Court to fix a time in which Mr. Armstrong could come iu before the Registrar. Of course, if Mr. Armstrong failed to do so, there could be no reason why the action should not be dismissed. Mr. Buddie and Mr. Tole re-

plied. His Honor said as it was clear there was some misunderstanding between Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Tole, he was disposed to allow a short time withfn which security should be given, not talked of, and in the event of the security not being given the action would be dismissed with costs. He ordered that the parties appear before the Registrar on Saturday morning to adjust the costs, security for such costs to be given within seven days alter, and in the event ef security not being given, the action be dismissed with costs. Mr. Tole applied for costs of the motion, and His Honor granted £5 ss, and disbursements on each motion. Law Practitioners' Act.—ln re Hugh Rutherford Shortland, a solicitor, of the Supreme Court. This was an ex parte application by the Law Society of the district for a rule nisi to have H. R. Shortland's name struck off the roll. Mr. Cooper appeared in support of the motion, and said thab in this matter he proposed to follow the same course as in the case In re Matthews. The Law Society considered ib would be unfair to take proceedings against Mr. Shortland while he was in gaol, but his term of imprisonment would expire on the 30th of this month. He proposed to serve him immediately, and would ask His Honor to make the rule returnable say in 21 days. His Honor granted the rule nisi returnable 21 days after service.

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Drunkionnkss.Four first offenders were fined 5s and costs, or in default 24 hours' imprisonment. Absent from School.— Peterson was charged with having disobeyed an order of the Court made on the 19th May, to send his son to school, as provided for under the compulsory clauses of the Education Act, 1877. James Small, truant inspector, deposed that, the boy had only attended school IS times out of 54 since the 14th July. A fine of 10s and coats was imposed.