COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 7492, 2 June 1885, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

Monday/ June 1. (Before their Honors the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Richmond, and Mr Justice Wil* Hams.) BANK Of AUSTRALASIA V. WILSON.

ta this ca*e, in which motion was made to set aside the judgment entered for the defendant, who was one of tbe sureties to tbe Bank for advance® made to Mr F. K. Jackson, judgments were read by tbe Judges separately. The Chief Justice and Mr Justice Williams thought that the judgment should stand, on the gro’und Ihtt the defendant had been released bj the agreement of the Bank with Jackson ♦ and, du the other handt Mr Justice Richmond and Mr Justice Gillies were cf opinion that tbe surety’s position bad not been prejudiced, but that accounts should be taken between tbe plaintiff and defendant. The Chief Justice therefore said that as the Court was equally divided there could be no decision, and the judgment o£ the Court below would stand. Mr Travers, for the plaintiff, applied for leave to appeal to the Privy Council. ['The Chief Justice : But wo give no judgment.] I f - amounts to a judgment, discharging tbe rule. In -England tbe junior judge withdraw* hi* judgment where the Court is equally divided. [Mr Justice Williams : Bat there is no case of the withdrawal by tbe junior judge where tis withdrawal would reverse the jidgment of the Court below.] Mr Bell ; One of the judges withdraws, £0 as to enab.e the judgment to stand, Tidd’s Practice. [The Chief Justice ; II U suggested, Mr Travers, although such a course is uuu-ual, that the judgment of one of the Judges whose opinion would reverse the judgment cf the Court below, should be [Mr Travers : I have no objec’ion to tha- course. [Mr Justice Richmond : I have do objection to withdrawing my judgment, but not my opinion.] The Chief Jintice : Toe rule will then be discharged, with coats on the highest scale. Leave to appeal to the Privy Council on the usual term®. SSABLE V, THE NEW ZEALAND INSURANCE COMPANY. Mr Justice Richmond road the judgment of the Court in this case, holding that the nonsuit must be set the verdict reduced to £514 2s Id (being Mr Lidbetter’a assessment after deducting certain charges for transhipment and storage not properly allowed to the ship), and reduce ! by a .proportion of Mr Lidbester’a fee of £lO-:10', but with interest added at the rate of 6 per cent, from the 19th September, 1879 The AttorneyGeneral consented to judgment being so entered. No* costa of tbo mle were allowed to either aide, in the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court. This concluded tho business of the Court of Appeal. f For continuation of news see fourth pugs.