SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7916, 27 September 1911, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL BUSINESS. MIRAMAR. LTD. An action for specific performance was heard by Mr Justice Edwards in the Supremo Court yesterday. Tho parties are Ueathcote Beotham Williams, Dudley Bruce Hill, and Arthur Spry Gwavas Carlyon, plaintiffs, all of Hawke’s Bay, and Miramar, Limited, defendants. Defendants, by their counsel, Mr A. vV. 15 lair, el aimed that, by a deed dated Marcn 21st. 1508, in consideration of the plaintiffs guarutceing an overdraft of £4835 at tho bank ot .New South Wales for tho Miramar Athletic Park and Wonderland Company, the defendant company agreed that if tho guarantee were not discharged by March 51st. 19C9, they would either allow i plaintiffs to remove tho buildings and fixtures other than tho fences at Wonderland, or. in tho alternative, would pay to thorn tho sum of £2551 5s unci take over tho and and buildings belonging to tho Wonderland Company, thus terminating the agreement, lu the event of the former course being adopted, tho contract to purchase between Miramar, Limited, and tho Wonderland Company was to bo terminated. The Wonderland Company had purchased from tho defendant company, some 39 acres and had paid the sum of £2351 ss, but had defaulted in regard to further instalments and interest. By tho terms of the deed Miramar. Limited, agreed not to enforce these payments until March 31st, 1909. Plaintiffs now alleged that when that date arrived an’ agreement was entered into whereby tho matter was still further deferred, and that lengthy negotiations took plaoo without an agreement being arnvod at. Plaintiffs, therefore, called upon Miramar, Limited, to pay tho sura of £2jsl 5e in terms of the agreement of 1908- . Tho defendants, Miramar, Limited, denied certain of the statements of the plaintiffs, and urged a further defence that plaintiffs hail lost their right under the guarantee and had, moreover, by their conduct, precluded themselves from making any further claim. Mr H. Dr 8011, K.C.. with him Mr C. 11. Treadwell appears for the defendant, company. Evidence for the plaintiffs had not concluded when tho case was adjourned to this morning. RAILWAY SERVANTS PROMOTION ACTION. An application for a writ of mandamus to compel the general manager for railways, Mr Ronayne, to certify to the good conduct of an employee was heard by the Chief Justice in Chambers. The plaintiff was Donald Wemyss Piulayson, railway porter, of ‘Wellington, and tho defendant, T. Ronayne, general manager lor railways. Plaintiff, who was represented by Mr W. H. D. Bell, stated that between April Ist, 1908, and July 4th, 1909, he was rated as a porter and acting-shunter, tho pay being 8s per day. Since then he had acted as relieving guard, but he was still rated as a porter. He applied for a writ of mandamns requiring the manager to certify for the years 1908-1910, with respect to plaintiff as an employee to whoso pay an increase was attached, whether his efficiency and good conduct had not been such, as to entitle him to receive tho increment. The defence urged by the Solictor-General., Mr J.- W. Salmond, was that other employees had claims to promotion prior to that of plaintiff. Whenever plaintiff acted as shunter, signalman, or guard, he received 8s 6d per day. Further, defendant had not the power to give tho certificate required by plaintiff. ilis Honor -reserved hjs decision. TODAY'S BUSINESSAt the Supreme Court to-day the action H. B. Williams and others v. Miramar, Limited, will be further heard by Mr Justice Edwards, Donald Fraser v. Winiata Pataka, a suit for specific pfc r^orma ' will bo opened before the ■ Chief Justice iSir Robert Stout); and the case of Ross and Olendining v. the Minister of Customs is also set- dovm for hearing.