THE COURTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 7776, 7 May 1886, Page 3

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COtfRT.-4S BANCO. TtttJnfmAV, Ufa Ma*; (tWore hti Honor the Chief Justice) bEcnvx v. tatcob and otilebs. This was a npctiial Maty fchd quudtion being whether tile SUtute of limitation ran against th; defendifiVs before the Crown grant limed. Stafford and Treadwell for the plain* r.iff, cite I J.ihns v Rivers, 20. A., 344 ; Alls* worth v iKrrry, 4. N.JUi.K.j C.A. 184 ; Boyd v MaclarlaiiG. N.Z.k.R., L. 3.0., Sit. Mildg* way v Bruck, not reported. Shaw contra. His Honor g*ve (1 Judgiuent foe the,-plaintiff for porsesdon of ttie land, with mesue profits. ■ \-.- FMITH V ROLLER AND ANOTHER. • Appeal from tfie decialoii or tfifi Resident Magistrate’s Court. This was an action by the respondents on a bill of costs. The appellant filed an .affidavib stating that be b*d applied for a nonsuit, which was refused; be appealed, and drew a caie In which the evidence was set out. The Judge struck out the evidence,-and stated what facts wore proved. Mr Jelllcoo asked that the case should be sent back for the Magistrate to state what evidence there was of retainer of the plaintiff’s. Mr Edwards opposed on tho ground that this was not prop -rly a motion to send battk the case, no notice having been given. The proper course was a mandamus. His Honor the Chief Justice I 1 do not think the practice is to have a notice of motion-. The Magistrate ought to have bad the parties before him when be settled the case, tt appears from the case that the Magistrate refused a nonsuit, and that the appeal is from that refusal. The evidence on which he grounded his refusal ought to be abated. Case sekt back for amendment by setting ont the evidence of retainer of the plaintiff* by the defendant. His Honor refused] to read the affidavit, but the main facts also appeared by the case Itself,

WATERS V. LEVIN, Levin and Co. were agents for Richardson for shipping talidw, Ac., to England, The following loiter waa fent tt Levin and Co.! “ has been arranged that Mr KicbardsOn is to Continue his shipments through you as heretofore, taking an advance of 2Jd per lb for preserved meat, and £2O per ton for tallow, and the balance Is to be placed to the credit of Riddiford and Sou. It is understood that the account between Mr Richardson nod Messrs Riddiford and Sou shall be made up to this date, and forwarded to you by first opportunity.—Your faithfully, A. RiCflAiuiaoN, K. J. Riddiford'* At thin time Richard too was indebted to Riddifords in more than £lO4, and After that date be became farther indebted for.stock supplied. It was Atr&aged between Richardson and RiddifOrd that the balance for proceeds of meat and tallow received by Levin and Co. under the terms of the letter should be placed to credit of Riddiford in discharge of Richard sou's indebtedness to Riddiford. At the date of Richardson's bankruptcy he owed Riddiford more than £194. He became bankrupt, the plaintiff beingAiis trustee. Account sales came out a few days later, showing an amount to credit of Richardson of £194, which Riddiford claimed. Mr Barton for the plaintiff I This is an arrangement for the sale of future profits which the Court will not allow as against the trustee. In re Jones er parte Nichols, 52 L.J., ch. 635 j Collyer v Isaac*, 51 L.J., ch. 14 ; Hutchinson v Hayworth, 8 L J., ch, 17. Mr Giilly : This la au equitable assignment or an assignment at law under the Property Law Consolidation Act, 1883. It may also be good as a novation by which Levin agtees to become liable (0 Riddiford. The assignment of a debt not yet due is valid. Bryce r Bannister, L. R. 2, Q.B,D. [The Chief Justice : la there anything to show that Levin assented ?] He credited Riddiford after the bankruptcy, bat it does not appear whether he. did so before. Wragge'a case, L. 6. 5, Eq. 284 ; Re Cambridge, L.R. 8, Ch. D. 2IS. After discussion the case was adjourned to ascertain if Messrs Levin and Co. had assented. O’SHEA V O'SHEA. Mr Brandon applied for leave to mortgage a piece of land for the parp .ee of raising money to build, and to charge the land which was under settlement. Me Fitz Gerald ap* peared to consent. Order made. SUTHERLAND V. SUTHERLAND AND ANOTHER. Mr Barton appeared for the plaintiff, the defendants being represented by Me Hali, This is a suit for the partition of the estate of tho late Alexander Robert Sutherland, consisting of a run of 14,813 acres In the Pahaua Block near Maryborough, and sections 887 and 889 in the city of Wellington. His Honor the Chief Justice held that the plaintiff was entitled to a judgment for partition, but referred the matter to Chambers for. settlement of the terms of the judgment.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. TAdesdalt, Mat fl. (Before B. A, Stratford, Esq., B.M ) DBUNKENBES3. James Ward was fined 6s for being drunk on Lambton-quay, io default 7 hours imprisonment. William Wbiteford was fined a similar amount for belog drunk in Courtenay-piaoe. ILLKOALLT ON PBEMIBE3. A. B. Fuden was charged with being illegally on the premises of his wife, Mary Jane Fodeo, between 1 and 2 a.m. yesterday morning, the said M, J. Foden having been protected from her husband by an order granted by the Court. Mrs Foden stated that accused bad jast been liberated from prison, where he had served a sentence for not obeying an order of the Coart to allow her 30a per week for maintenance, He went to her boose at the time stated and endeavored to force bis way in through a back window, asserting in strong language 1 that he bad .ho money or place to go to, and weald remain there. This she knew te be (alee, ai be' bad; .been offered money for a bed by an acquaintance. She then seat for the police, and had him attested. The Bench stated that Mrs Foden’a premises wets as much her own as his Worship's. By goiog there he bad made himself liable Co a term of three mouths' imprisonment, He would sentence him to 24 boars, and advise him not to come before tbs .Court again. CIVIL OASES.

Judgment summonses.—A. Sample v. J. 0. Smith, £2 11s 9J, ordered to pay on copy of service being served, in default three days’ imprisonment; 6. Atdous y, G. Beven, £1 4s 6d, same order. Judgments for plaintiffs was given in the following cases !—Te Are Theatre 00. v. Ellen Harding, amount claimed £4 ; D. McLean v. 6. Bear, amount claimed £1 7s 5d ; K. Freeman v. John Bree, £l9s 10s ; D. McLean v, W. Edwards, £4 Oi 9d. Messrs E» W. Mills and 00. v H. S. Fiteherbert. Mr Brandon appeared for the plaintiff ; defendant defended bis own case. This was a claim for £8 12s on account of goods supplied to the Potor.o Naval Artillery, of which defendant was captain. Defendant paid into Court £3 2s 6d, with 5s costs, in satisfaction of claim. Mr Brandon stated, in answer to the Bench, that defendant was sued bath as captain of the corps and in his private capacity. E. W. Mills gave evidence to the effect that defendant opened an account on behalf of the Petone Naval Brigade in 1882, and goods had been entered in bis name as captain of the corps. He bad seen him in his store on several occasions when orders bad been taken. Ha could not swear to having heard the defendant give the orders, because he oaald not remember the dates. Defendant bad asked him to send in bis claim to Captain Johnston, and also to seed is vouchers to Captain Anderson of tho Defence Department,- He had done so, bat- coaid get no satisfaction, as the vouchers were sent back. George March, storekeeper for E. W. Mills and Co., proved the entries of goods against the Petone Naval Contingent. H. 8. Filzherbert gave evidence to the effect that he had no recollection of ordering any of the items in 1882. Was junior lieutenant of the Wellington Naval Brigade at that time. Was in charge of No. 3 cutter, fer which the goods were required. The boat was kept at Petone. Members of the Wellington Naval Brigade residing at Petone, and others living there formed what was called the Petone Naval Contingent in 1882. It became the Fetone Naval Artillery in August, 1833. He had been appointed captain of the Brigade. He had recommended that tho account should be paid by the Brigade. He had never given authority to have the goods entered in his name, Mr Henry, warrant officer ot the Fetone Naval Brigade, dep sed that he was in 1832 a petty officer in the Wellington Naval Brigade, He remembered oars and other articles being procured from fhn plaintiffs for No. 3 cotter. Lieutenant Bennett ordered the oars. Mr Brandon’s contention was that the goods were snppliod by defendant's order, and that therefore be was personally responsible. He left it to the Court to decide as to the point h« raised in reference to the defendant’s liability as captain of the Fetone Nival Artillery. Mr H. S. Fitzherbert submitted that the goods were not ordered by the Fetone contingent, as at that time it was not a separate body, and had no fnnds of its own. Under theVolnoteer Act, the captain wasftbe proper person to sue, and at the time the goods were ordered he was simply alieatonant ia the Wellington Naval Bri. gade. Mr Stratford said tho whole question bristled with law points, and be would deliver judgment at IX o’clock next morning. Bradnock v Page, claim for £lO 2s. Sir Izard, jun., appeared for plaintiff .; Mr FitzGerald for defendant. This was. an action to recover 2s paid under protest to defendant, who had impounded, on the 4th of April, two cows balancing to plaintiff, £5 damages, and £5 for stopping defendant’s right to naa

itetti tVao direct* da involving a question Of title Which fcoald ndt be heard In that dolirk, The fadts iVtlro fchfifi bdth turtles’ propertied adjoined oil the Sotith Karoriroad, The propertied wfi're paHty fenced off, bufc the Gatbla 8f tfift plaintiff oCHaeirtnally strayed on to defendant’* land, Defendant bad complained of the trespass, and; on the 4th Aprifi sreiiit. d bars a slip-panel on his property Sdfith Karoriroad. On that date plaintiff wrenched off one of the bars, fiad endeavored to force his cattle through on to, tho road. He was unsuccessful, and defendant impounded two cows, and demand-d 7.0 per bead for trespass, which plaintiff pai 1 uudef- The 0 »urt having beard the evidence, thought the defendant had nettfd within the provisions of. the Impounding Act of 1884, and gave judgment for £i> 2b, * • -* -