The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 386, 5 July 1879, Page 11

The Courts.

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO. Monday, June 30. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) DEMURRER IN RE HAIR v. CORPORATION OF WANG ANt>l. Mr. Travers for plaintiff, Mr. Ollivier for defendants. This was a case arising out of an action brought by Jane Hair, the plaintiff, to recover compensation for the taking of water from the Virginia Lake on her property by the Corporation for a water supply. The defendants’ reply was to the effect that plaintiff had no title, and that she had not taken the proper steps as pointed out by various Acts on construction of waterworks for the recovery of compensation, The plaintiff now demurred to these answers on the grounds that no notice to treat was given to the plaintiff pursuant to the provisions of the Lands Claims Consolidation A ct, 1863, nor was the purchase money for the same ascertained and paid or deposited as required by the said Act before the commencement of operations. The demurrer was argued at great length, and his Honor reserved his opinion. The Court adjourned till 2 p.m. next day. Tuesday, July 1. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) IN RE BISHOP V. MACDONALD.

This case was tried at the last circuit sittings at Wellington, and resulted in the jury being discharged without giving a verdict. Mr. Travers, who appeared for the defendant at the trial, obtained leave to move for a nonsuit on the grounds that defendant, being a trustee in bankruptcy, a month’s notice of action should have been given under section 199 of the Debtors and Creditors Act, 1876, and that the requisite notice had not been given. Mr. Ollivier, and with him Mr. EitzG-erald, for the plaintiff, contended that inasmuch as plaintiff had declined to be non-suited at the trial, and that the jury did not agree, by the authority of Dewar v. Purday, 4 N. and M. 683, the defendant is prevented in obtaining a nonsuit without tbe assent of the plaintiff.

His Honor upheld this contention, and dismissed the rule for a nonsuit, with costs.

IN RE MACLEAN V. NICHOLSON. This case was, on the application of Mr. Ollivier, adjourned sine die. IN RE HOUGHTON V. MOODY. This case was ordered to stand over for argument on Friday next. WELLINGTON ATHKN.EUM V. MACE. At the trial of this action in April last the jury returned a verdict against the defendant for £513 3s. lid., the action being one brought against defendant as surety for James Ransom, contractor for building tiro Athenaeum. Mr. Travers obtained a rule nisi calling upon plaintiffs to show cause why the verdict should not be set aside, on the ground that there was no evidence that the penalties recoverable for the non-completion of the work within the time specified had not been paid to the plaintiffs before the action. After hearing Mr. Connolly and Mr. Edwards for the plaintiffs against the rule, and Mr. Travers in support of the motion. His Honor decided that as the case was framed it could not be questioned that the penalties had not been paid, and dismissed the rule with costs.

The Court then aJjourned to 11 a.m. to-day, when the following cases stand for hearing : Minifie v. Martin, Palmer v. Thompson, Oallum v. Watt, Native Lands Act v. Morimutu Block, Dodson v. Parker (for injunction, Blenheim case), Buclceiidge v. Wardell, Corporation of Wellington v. Watson (on award), Nathan v. Nathan (Wanganui case).

Wednesday, J uly 2. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) TRUSTEES IN THE ESTATE OF J. MINNIFIE V. J. MARTIN. In this case the trustee in the assigned estate of J. Minnifie alleged that the defendant, after realising on certain securities held by him of the plaintiff, had a surplus for which he had not accounted, and prayed that an account might be taken. His Honor Mr. Justice Richmond, by consent, made an order on October 4, 1878, that the accounts should be referred to Mr. William Berry, accountant, to make an award, and the award was to the effect that the defendant should pay the trustee £264 3s. Id. iu full satisfaction. The defendant, thereupon obtained a rule nisi, calling upon plaintiff to show cause why the awards should not be set aside, on the ground that the arbitrator had not found specifically according to the submission, viz., the net proceeds received by the defendant under the various secm'ifcies respectively. Mr. Ollivier, with him Mr. Fitz Gerald, appeared to show cause against the rule, and Mr, Gordon Allan in support of the rule. A preliminary objection was raised that the objection to the award was taken too late, as it was published in February, 1879, and the motion for a rule was not applied ror till the following May. Judgment was ultimately given against the rule cm this ground, and further that the award was sufficiently specific. DODSON V. PARKER. In this case Mr. George Dodson, Chairman of the Spring Greek Board of River Conservators, was plaintiff, and Mr. Richard *' - Parker, Chairman of the Lower Wairau Board, was defendant. Mr. Oonoiiy, on behalf of plaintiff, obtained a provisional injunction to restrain a certain alleged injurious course of action being taken by the defendant. CAELUM (CREDITORS’ TRUSTEE Of) V. WATT. Mr. G. Hutchison for plaintiff ; Mr. Ollivier for defendant.

This was a question whether certain securities given by the debtor to defendant would

stand as against the trustee in bankruptcy. The case having been argued his Honor reserved judgment.

IN RE NATIVE LANDS ACT V. MORIMOTU BLOCK. This was a special case stated to decide the following question of law : —Whether the Native Land Court could proceed to the subdivision of the block on the application of one or more of the persons interested, notwithstanding the refusal of the owners to agree to the apportionment of ten or other number of persons in whose favor the certificate should be ordered to issue. Mr. A. Duncan, of Wanganui, appeared to argue the case. His Honor stated that be would look into the various Native Lands Acts, and intimate at a later period the course to be taken. POSTPONEMENTS. The following cases were adjourned to Friday ; —Palmer v. Thompson ; in rc Corporation of Wellington v. Watson. The Court then adjourned to 11 a.m. next day. The following cases remain on the list : Buckridge v. Wardell, Nathan (trustee of) v. Nathan, G-erse v. Taylor. Thursday, July 3. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) H. BUCKERIDGE V. H. S. WARDELL. In this case the minutes of the decree made on June 25 were settled. TRUSTEE OF NATHAN V. NATHAN. Mr. Bell for plaintiff, Mr. Hutchison for defendant. Mr. Hutchison moved for a decree to dismiss the suit with costs. His Honor reserved his decision. GERSE V. TAYLOR. Mr. Hutchison for plaintiff, Mr. Travers for defendant. Mr. Travers moved that the cause be dismissed unless the plaintiff proceeded with it, and an order to that effect was made. This concluded the business on the list, and the Court then adjourned to 11 a.m. to-morrow, in order to arrange when the cases originally fixed for to-day shall be taken.

BANKRUPTCY COURT. Tuesday, July 1. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) ORDERS OF DISCHARGE. On the application of Mr. Fitz Gerald, orders of discharge were granted to Messrs. George Dorney, Thomas Tolley, and Frankland Valentine. In the latter case Mr. Fitz Gerald applied for costs, but as no notice had been given to the trustee, and as there was no affidavit to show that costs had not been paid, the question was reserved. DEEDS OF ARRANGEMENT. On the motion of Mr. Ollivier, the deed of arrangement was declared to be completely executed in the case of M.r. R. A. Walcelin ; and Mr. Edwards moved for and obtained similar orders in the cases of O. McKirdy and James Roberts. Similar applications iu the cases of John Adams and William Corpe were ordered to stand over to Friday.

DISTRICT COURT. Friday, June 27. (Before his Honor Judge Mansford and a jury of four.) LIST V. HOLMWOOD. An action to recover £lB2 135., brought by the chief officer of the stranded ship Hyderabad against her master. Mr. Ollivier appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Stafford for the defendant, who paid £96 Bs. vd. into Court. Mr. Stafford, at the outset, contended that Jiis Honor had no jurisdiction, as only Courts having Admiralty jurisdiction could deal with cases in which seamen were concerned, where the amount was over £SO. He maintained that the Supreme Court was the proper Court to try the case. His Honor thought that the fact of £96 odd being paid into Court practically disposed of the question as to jurisdiction. He also ruled that as the claim was not for services rendered while at sea that the Court bad jurisdiction. Mr. Ollivier, in opening his case, stated that should judgment be given iu favor of his client it would not be the master who would have to pay, but the owners of the vessel at Home. The plaintiff had beeu engaged by tbe plaintiff to superintend the working of the ship while she was ashore.

J. List, on being sworn, said he bad a certificate as first mate, but shipped in London as second mate on the 12th November, 187/, at a wage of £5 10s. a month. On arrival at Adelaide, the chief officer left, and witness was appointed in his place at a wage of £8 10s. This took place on the 11th March. The vessel was subsequently wrecked near Otaki. All hands left the ship for 4S hours. Witness, the second mate, carpenter, and boatswain stayed by the ship. The captain and the remainder of the crew went away some twentyfive miles. The next day witness, the boatswain, and three apprentices went on board the ship again. The men then returned to the beach, but refused to go on board. They were fed by provisions from the ship, supplied to them by witness by orders from the master. The men who remained on the beach were paid off on the 4th July. The master wrote to witness, saying that he would send some fresh hands down to pump out the ship. On the 3rd July Captain Holmwood brought down seven men from Buxton, and gave witness orders to have all the ship’s sails sent down, and the wreckage cleared away. The work was dangerous, and the pumping was very hard work, as it had to be done by nand. The work was being carried on under witness’s orders, and during the time they were engaged at it all hands on board were receiving 10s. a day until further notice. Witness subsequently asked Captain Holmwood for overtime, as_ he had all the responsibility, and was receiving the same pay as the others. Captain Holmwood said he could not promise any more money. Captain Holmwood offered witness £96 Bs. 7d., but be refused it.

By Mr. Stafford : Never got a discharge from Captain Holmwood. Refused to do so. On one or two occasions there were slight probabilities of the ship being launched. The last occasion was towards the end of Jauuary last. Captain Holmwood gave his evidence to the effect that the plaintiff was to have received a sum of money from one Ross, the contractor for launching the vessel. Had the vessel been, successfully launched, he (the plaintiff) would never have brought the present action. Mr. Stafford addressed the jury at some length, contending that there was no contract between the parties, and consequently defendant was not indebted.

The jury, after a short deliberation, gave judgment for the plaintiff for £159 4s. 3d., and costs.