THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1261, 30 April 1896, Page 35

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

The vex«d question of the ventilation of private drains was again brought into public notice last week, when the Chief Justice heard the ease of A. Wilson v. the City Inspector of Drains, an appeal from the decision of Mr Martin, S.M., who had convicted Wilson of a breach of the Sanitary By-lawa in refusin'' to erect a ventilating shaft on bis nremises. The ground of the appeal was that under cover of ventilating the private drams the Corporation were really ventilating the public sewers, and that this was ultra Vires. The Judge held that this was a sanitary arrangement which the Corporation had power to make, and dismissed the appeal without costs Mr Edwards appeared for the appellant, and Mr T. F. Martin, City Solicitor, tor the respondent. . ~ , , In Banco last week the Chief Justice heard a motion for mandamus to compel the Stipendiary Magistrate at Palmerston North to rehear the case of Smith v. Baldwin, m which judgment had been given against the detendant, on the ground that the Magistrate had refused to adjourn the case for the purpose of enabling Mr Baldwin’s evidence to be taken at Wellington, as the Magistrate held that the application to have the evidence fciken was made too late. Mr Skorrett appeared for Mr Baldwin in support ot the application, and Mr Young opposed on behalt ot the plaintiff, Mr Smith. After hearing argument by Mr Skorrett, the Chief Justice dismissed the application without calling on Air Young, but refused to allow costs. Judgment was delivered by the Clnot Justice last week in the case of Martin v. tho Westport Harbour Board, a claim tor damages caused to defendant’s land by oortain works carried out by the Board, feir James Prendorgast hold that the Compensation Court had power to hear and adjudicate on tho claim, that the Board was liable to make compensation under the Public Wanes Acts, but was liable only to compensatei m respect of the depreciation in the value of the lands and buildings, and not to compensate in respect of what might bo called loss of goodwill and business profits. The costs of the case and argument must be reserved to bo dealt with by tho Compensation Court. The case of Wastoneys v. Wastcneys, in which Sir William Wastoneys seeks to set aside a deod of separation from his wife, Lady Wastenoys, on the ground that it was obtained by fraud, was before the Chief Justice in the Supremo Court on Friday. 'I he evidence of Miss Marion Poster, who is on the point of leaving for Australia, was taken, and the further hearing of tho case was then adjourned. Mr Edwards appeared for tno plaintiff, and Mr Skerrott for tho defendant. Tho Chief Justice on Saturday heard a motion by Sir Robert Stout, on behalf of Mr Win. Sinclair, of Blenheim, to set aside an order made by tho Court in ease of O’Sullivan v. rinclair on July 23rd last, ordering him to pay -8701 into Court, and also to set aside tiio Registrar s certificate finding that sum of money to bo ill Mr Sinclair’s hands as trustee. Mr Jellicoo opposed the motion. Sir James Prendergast reserved his decision. . „ T .. Mr Jellicoo applied to the Chief Justico last weok to set asido an order made by the Registrar ot the Supiemo _ Court at Nelson that accounts should be filed in tho case of Niemann v. Niemann. 'llio application, which was opposed by Air Travel’s, was granted. An application to sol asido a decree entered up in the case was adjourned to see if a settlement can be arrived at botwocn tho parties.