THE COURTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume LII, Issue 9264, 9 April 1891, Page 3

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO. Wednesday, April 8. (Before bis Honor Mr Justice Edwards.) PEAT V. HANKBY. In this case, which was an appeal from the Resident Magistrate at Wanganui, his Honor delivered a written judgment, allowing the appeal, with cost L 7 7s. The appellant had boon convicted on the information of tha respondent, charging him under sub-section 2 of section 156 of the Public Works Act, 1882, with having allowed his pigs to wander on the New Piyraouth-Eoxton Railway, which passes through appellant’s land, and which the information alleged to ba there fenced on both sides. The evidence showed that tho railway fences had been allowed by the railway authorities to fall into disrepair, so that it was neither sheep, nor cattle, nor pig-proof, and his Honor allowed the appeal on tho ground that “fenced,” within the moaning of tho section, must at least mean enclosed on both sidt s with a fence sufficient at tho time of the alleged offence to keep out animals ordinarily enclosed by fences (torn trespassing. GOLLAN V, KELLY. His Honor also delivered a written judgment in this case, tried before himself and a common jury of twelve at the last circuit sittings at Napier. The action was one by a purchaser of leaseholds against a vendor for damages for a misrepresentation that the leases assigned conferred upon tho lessee the absolute right to cut aud sell tho timber growing upon tho demised land. The jury found that the defendant had made the false representation, knowing it to be untrue, and that the plaintiff had relied upon it. It was proved, however, that tha plaintiff’s solicitor had seen the leases after tho execution of the formal agreement, but before the assignment, that tho leases negatived the right to cut limber, but that the plaintiff’s solicitor did not know of the representation which had been made to the p'aintiff. Actions of law ware argued upon further consideration, and His Honor now gave judgment for the plaintiff for tho damages awarded by the jury (L 800), with costs on the highest scale, holding that there would have been a right of action even if the plaintiff himself had seen tha leases before the assignment, as the formal agreement had been executed by him in reliance on tho representation, and that in any case tho knowledge by tho plaintiff of the representation and by tho plaintiff’s solicitor of the terms of the leases could not amount together to knowledge by the plaintiff that the representation was false. WILKINS V. ROBINSON. This was a motion for a prohibition to H. W. Robinson, Esq., R.M., Wellington, against proceeding in tha recent petition to have the election of the plaintiff Wilkins as a councillor for tho Lower Hult Borough declared void. Mr Gully appeared in support of the motion, Mr Travers opposing. The affidavit showed that Constable Crnikshank was the duly appointed Clerk of tho Resident Magistrate’s Court at the Lower Hult ; that he occupied a building used both as a dwollinghouse and as tho police station, a detached room on the premises being used as the lock-up; that he used one of the rooms, in the house so used as a dwellinghouae and police station, both as a private room and also aa the place foe filin o ' and issuing summonses and other documents requited to be filed and issued by him aa clerk of the Court; that he kept no regular office hours, and that when he was away on constable’s duty no inspection of the documents filed could be obtained ; and and that the petition in question had been left with him and kept by him at such dwelling house or police station. It further appeared that the facts that the persons signing the petition as candidate and electors respectively were a duly nominated candidate and duly qualified electors had been proved by the production of tho Returning Officer of tho roll of electors, and the official lists of candidatesoontaiaingnames identical with those of the signatories, but that no proof of identity had been given, or that the alleged candidate had been duly nominated. The principal questions argued were whether on tha above facta there was any “ office” of a Resident Magistrate’s Court at the Lower Hutt at which the petition could properly be filed under section 48 of tha Regulation of Local Elections Act, 1876, and whether there had boon evidence on which tho Magistrate could find that the petition had been signed in compliance with the Act. His Honor reserved his decision. (PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Dunedin, April 8. At tha Supreme Court to-day, Mr Justice Williams reversed the decision _ of the magistrate at Invercargill who had dismissed tho case brought against Mr Coxhead by tho Acclimatisation Society lor having certain game in his possession to law. The ease was remitted back for trial, with five guineas coats. Mr Justice Williams also reversed the

given in the case brought by the Lunuden School Committee ogainst a Jdra Fulton, which had been dismissed on the technical ground that the clerk of the School Committee was deacribed as secretary insteod of clerk. This objection His Honor considered was untenable, and the respon* dent was saddled with coats. Judgment was also given in a somewhat intricate patent case. The question was whether persons having patent rights in the manufacture of barbed wire in tue United States and patent rights in New Zealand also, and who had granted licenses for the Use of the invention in the United States, could prevent each licensees from selling in the New Zealacd market. Uis Honor decided that the particular licensees in this instance were not the patentees, and could not therefore give the power of sale in this Colony.