SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3862, 3 July 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

. Thursday, 2nd Jvlv.' ; "(Before His Honour Mr Justice Chapman.) I iJi i.L _i ..'• •.." ~J C ATTAMIMBNT, •-'■ ■■ "■"■ '.' ,/ | Mr.\V...jQ. Stewart .requested that the hearing of-tho application"- for-the writ' of; at achinent-against the .Guardian -newspaper mijfht be postponed^ "i ■ consequence of the indisposition of. Mr Haggitt. After some discussion,'it w:is decided, that the hearing of the app'iciitiou should stand over until after the' Criminal Sessions. , , .;-..-. ~.....■,5EW TKIAT,. ...,,•,,..,. .... ' ; The.adjourned case of Ross'v.'lleith arid Others Was .continued.-- This was an application on the part of the'plaintiff for a new trial,- Mr -Maeassey and Mr Stewart appearing to show cause, and: Mr Stout in support of' the application. : : Arguments were concluded, and His Honour reserved judgment. ■■..■-.• • .';..:■: i Kitehing v. M'Carthy.—This was an argument oiv a demurrer. Mr Stout appeared in support of ;thev d^ murrer, «nd Mr Maca-ssey, with Mr Mouat, in support of the declaration. The de.laration set forth that the defendant wis owner in fee simple and registered jifo'prietor under the i-'ands' Transfer Act, 1870, of 90acres .of laiid, being.sections 3, (i. and 8, block 1.," in the Boiger district ;■ that an agreement was made between the plaintiff and defendant to sell the. Dumbarton ■Hotel, the land, and crops for £000 ; that £30 had been paid;'.that the : .agreement was not signed, but that a receipt was signed, the receipt being in the fcHowiiv '"words':—" I have this day received £30 literling from" Mr J. F. Kitehing," and signed by the a fendan't's wife at his request. Letters had passed between the plaintiff and 'defendant^ and one of them from defendant contained the following words:—"As you promised to. let me keep my place, it could not better lmselfj and I have made up my mind to keep it." It wan stated iii the declaration that the plaintiff had tendered the balance of the purchase money, and the transfer for signature, but that the defendant refused to execute it, or to receive the purchase-money. Specific'performance of the agreement was asked for. The demurrer stiied that the matters of law it was intended i to argue were—first, that the declaration disclosed no equity in the plaintiff entitling him to performance of the contract as set forth' in the declaration, and also that it did not appear that the contract in writing for the sale of the land mentioned in the declaration was neither made nor signed by defendant, or any person authorised by him to do so." The arguments of learned counsel were not concluded when the Court adjourned until next day.