SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 4166, 25 June 1875, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

Thursday, 2lh-H Junk. (Before His Honour Mr Justice Johnston.) HAY V. HOGG AND OTKKKS. Motio:i for a decree. Mr Macassey, with him Mr Stout, for plaintiff ; Mr Barton, with him Jlr Stewart, for the defendants, Hogg and Hutton. Tliere was uo appearance of the defendant Somervell. The plaintiff prayed : That a receipt of I:2th January, 1874, might he declared, by decree of tlie Court, to amount at most to a security for the due retirement of the bills of exchange therein mentioned. That upon the due payment of what might be adjudged or found to be due in respect of the first bill of exchange in tlie said receipt mentioned, and the delivery up to J. Hogg and J. Hutton of three other bills, tlie said receipt might be cancelled or destroyed. That J. Hogg and J. Hutton might be required at their own cost and charges to execute aud register a release (to be duly approved of by the Registrar of this honourable Court) of the encumbrance registered against the title to tlie land in the first paragraph of the declaration mentioned. That J. Hogg and J. Hutton might lie decreed to bear and pay the plaintiffs costs of suit, together with .such other costs as might be awarded to the defendant, Hendry Somervell, by reason of his having been made a party to this suit. That the plaintift might have such further or other relief as to the Court might seem meet. After argument, His Honour said that plaintiff was entitled substantially to the relief sought—of course on tlie terms of first paying tlie principal and interest on the first bill. It might be a matter for_ consideration whether the bills should be delivered up or cancelled ; and on that point His Honour was understood to say that the precise terms of the decree could be subsequently fixed. HKOIXA V. WALTER HOSSACK. Argument of rule vini for writ of prohibition. Mr B. C. Haggitt, counsel for Hossack ; and the other side was not represented either in person or by counsel. This was an application for a writ of prohibition to issue against James Hasseil and Samuel Edward Shrimski, J.P.s, to prohibit the said Justices from proceeding in the matter of an information and conviction against Walter Hossack. Mr Haggitt moved the rule absolute for a writ of prohibition. Hossack had been convicted under the "Vagrant Act of 18t>0, of being " a rogue and vagabond," for being at night without lawful excuse, on the premises of Clara Eliza Ann Alport, at Oamaru. It appeared that Hossack, who ivas a respectable man in business, at Oamaru, had been in the habit of visiting at the house of the person who laid the information against him. There was a young lady iv the house, to whom he paid liis addresses, and to whom, it seemed, he was not agreeable. He was ordered to go away, but stayed about the place. The Justices'found liim to be a " rogue and vagabond," which he (Mr Haggitt), submitted he was not, and that he (Hossack) did not come within the meaning of fche Vagrant Act. Mr Haggitt having stated the evidence, said that on that tlie Justices convicted the man. They did not sentence him, and that was one of "the grounds why he appeared for a prohibition. The case was treated in a most extraordinary way. He was Tirouglit before the Resident Magistrate at Oamarn, the case was adjourned, and when he | was next brought up, Messrs Shrimski and I Hasseil were on the Bench, as well as the R.M. The Justices had heard only part of the evidence, and Mr Parker, R.M., who heard the whole of the evidence, wa.s not present when the two Justices convicted Hassock. Tliey convicted him, but did not sentence him, biit bound him over to come up for .sentence, when called upon. Not having taken part in the wholeof the proceedings, the Justices had no jurisdiction to convict. His Honour wa.s not prepared to say that two Justices of the Peace who had not heard the case were not justified in taking the recognisances. He should rather be sorry that they hael not the power, because he thought it made thoir jurisdiction elastic in a safe direction. On the ground that the conviction was made by Justices who had not heard the whole of the evidence, his Honour made the rule absolute. After some remarks from liis Honour, Mr Haggitt did not press the application for costs. Rule absolute, without costs.