THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, 21 July 1892, Page 21

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

A sitting of the Supreme Court in Banco was held last week before the Chief Justice. The first case called on was that of Emma Hill, of Palmerston North, v. Manning. Mrs Hill had been fined LlO, with costs LI Is, with the alternative of a month’s imprisonment in default, for selling liquor without a license, and she now appealed against the decision. Mr Jellicoe appeared in support of the appeal. His Honor reserved his decision. The case of Beard v. Official Assignee—an appeal against a decision of the District Judge at Masterton,' annulling a settlement made prior to the bankruptcy—was next dealt with. His Honor allowed the appeal, and granted the appellant costs, to come out of the available assets of the estate. Mr Bell appealed for the appellant, and Mr Brown for the respondent. A decision of Judge Mackay, in declining as a Trust Commissioner to grant a certificate in respect of a deed of assignment, was appealed against by Stewart and (Jo. Mr Hutchen appeared for the appellant, and Mr Bell for the respondent, Piripi te_ Maari, who had opposed the issue of the certificate. His Honor reserved judgment. Several judgments were given by the Chief Justice on Thursday morning. In the case of Amor v. Austin, of Palmerston North, a motion to remove a charging order on a fund payable to tha defendant and one McCurdy, as partners, His Honor set aside the order with L 3 3s costs, and allowed the fund to be paid to McCurdy. Mr Gully appeared for McCurdy, and Mr Jellicoe opposed the motion. In the case of C. E. Tattersall v Land Board, an appeal against the decision of_ the Board in refusing the appellant the title to certain Crown lands, His Honor held that the appellant was entitled to acquire the freehold as he had effected all necessary improvements. Mr Gully'received judgment for the Board. His Honor also gave judgment in regard to several of the cases argued in Chambers, in which the liquidator of [ the Mokau Coal Company sought to have certain persons added to the list of contributors. His Honor held that A. Forsyth, whom the liquidator claimed was liable for 100 shares, was not liable, and the application was refused with L 5 5s costs. The application of the liquidator to make J. H. Shine, holder of 3 shares, liable for 47 additional shares, was also refused with costs L 5 ss. The application against J. Kitchen in respect of 150 shares was also refused with costs L 5 ss.

When the case of Ross v. Cottrell, a claim of LSOO damages for malicious prosecution, was called on in the Supreme Court on Friday afternoon, Mr Skerrett, who represented the plaintiff, asked for permission to take a nonsuit. Mr Travers, who appeared for the defendant, assented, and His Honor the Chief Justice entered up a nonsuit accordingly. Before the Chief Justice last Friday afternoon a decree absolute was granted in the divorce suit of Braddock v. IJraddock, a petition by the wife. His Honor also granted an order giving the petitioner the custody of the children of the marriage. Mr M. Richmond appeared for the petitioner. In the Supreme Court on Saturday, His Honor the Chief Justice delivered judgment on the appeal brought by Emma Hill. His Honor held that the offence was proved, but that Mr Jellicoe’s contention as to the construction of the statute must prevail, and the appeal be allowed. The conviction was therefore quashed. The appeal of John Lane, cab proprietor, against a conviction of the Resident Magistrate at Wellington, for an offence against the Vehicle By-law, was next pro ceeded with. Mr Jellicoe appeared for the appellant, and Mr Martin for the Corporation. Mr Jellicoe argued that no statutory offence had been charged or proved, that production of a copy of the By-law did not prove its existence at the date of commission of the alleged offence, and that an exception in enacting clause had not been negatived by the prosecution. Mr Martin contended that proof of the making of the By-law was presumptive evidence of its continuing in force, and that the exception relied on was severable from the other portion of the By-law. His Honor reserved his decision. The Chief Justice formally gave judgment in the case of Hales v. Jellicoe and Claacodine on Monday morning. His Honor held that the defendant Glascodine ought not to have been joined in the action, and, therefore, he entered up judgment for him wioh costs on the lowest claim. In the case of the other defendant (Mr Jellicoe), judgment would be entered up against him on one of the causes of action for LlO 10s, while on the other causes of action, judgment would be given in his favour. His Honor allowed no costs for either side. On the application of Mr Bunny, acting for the defendant, the Chief Justice, in Chambers, on Tuesday, fixed the case of W. L. Lueena v. Dr Hosking, of Masterton, for hearing on Tuesday next. The plaintiff claims that an agreement for the s-de of the Te Weraite block shall be carried out, and that he shall receive compensation in consequence of the vendor, who is the defendant in the case, not having disclosed the fact that there was a mortgage on the land, and that the Masterton Road Board claimed to take a road through it. DIVORCE CASE. (PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Dunedin, July 15. In the divorce case, Thomson v. Thomson and Wylie, the husband’s petition, the jury found that Mrs Thomson had been guilty of adultery, and awarded Thomson £ISOO damages from Wylie, LIBEL ACTIONS. Blenheim, July 13. At the Supreme Court to day, Geo. A. Dowsing waa charged with criminally libelling W. S. Staite in a Marlborough paper. The case lasted the whole of the afternoon. The jury were unab'e to agree, and were locked up for the night. (BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.) Blenheim, July 14. In the oriminal libel action Staite v. Dowsing, the jury who wore locked up all night could not agree, and have been discharged. LatePv. A second jury was empannelled, and returned a verdiot of not guilty. In the civil action, in which damages were laid at £IOOO, a verdict of one farthing damages was returned, each party to pay their own costs,

(press association.) Woodville, July 14. At the Court to-day, before Mr Turnbull, R. M., E. A. Haggen, publisher of the Woodville Examiner, was charged, on the information of William Syms, chemist and J.P., with publishing a false and defamatory libel on April 27th. Mr Manisty appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Southey Baker for the defendant, Mr Maniaty stated that the oomplainant had called on defendant to apologise, but he refused. Complainant gave evidence, stating that he imagined the alleged libel referred to him and charged him with procaring abortion. On Mr Baker, for defendant, proceeding to cross examine him as to his treatment of a certain person, Mr Manisty objected, and contended that the Magistrate had no right to enquire into the facts or truth of the libel, or whether it was for the public benefit. That waa a question for a higher Court, and the Magistrate must commit for trial.

The Resident Magistrate said such a contention took him by surprise, as in that oase a man perfectly innocent might be committed fer trial. He commented very strongly ©a the position of the criminal libel law if that were so.

Mr Baker contended that as the defence was practically privilege, the Court could enquire into the facts though not the truth. If the Engish Act wer? in force, the lower Court could enquire into the truth, and whether tha libel was published for the public benefit, but the English law was not adopted in New Zealand. The Magistrate said the point was very important, and adjourned the case for a fortnight to look into the law on the subjeefc-