SUPREME COURT.—IN BANCO.

Otago Witness, Issue 852, 28 March 1868, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.— IN BANCO.

His Honor, Mr Justice Chapman, sat in Banco on Saturday, to enable cases to be mentioned, so as to save time, with a view to motions hereafter.

Seatonv. Groves. — Mr Macassey said that in this case there was a verdict for the plaintiff, in an action for forfeiture by breach of covenant. Before the plaintiff signed judgment, it was intended to> move for a rule nisi ; but he was not atpresent prepared to state the precise form of the rule which would be asked for.

, Smith v. The New Zealand Insurance Company.— ln this case, Mr Macassejr said that the defendants would move on. the points reserved.

New Zealand and Australian Land Company (Limited) v. Boyes ani> Others. -Mr Macassey said tliat the defendants proposed to move.

The Judge : It is not necessary to mention this case. There is no execution to be stayed : it was only a finding of issiies of fact.

Mr Macassey : I have a right to ask that the issue shall be re-tried ; and it might be said, unless I mentioned the case to-day, that I had forfeited my right to make such an application.

Commercial Bank of New Zealand. (Limited) v. Hutchison — Mr B. C. Haggitt said that it was the defendant's intention to move for a new trial.

The Judge : There were no points reserved ; and I think you should state the grounds on which you mean to move.

Mr Haggitt said that the grounds were — verdict contrary to the evidence ; verdict against the weight of evidence j erroneous admission of evidence ; and the discovery of material evidence since the trial, which the defendant could not have obtained before the hearing. Latham v. Macandrew (Superintend dent) — Mr Haggitt said that the defendant would move for a non-suit on. the points reserved — 1. That there was no notice of trial ; 2. On the question of right-of-way.

The Judge : Ido not think there is anything in the right-of-way point. Webster v. Maclean. — Mr E. P. Kenyon said that the defendant would* move, on the grounds— l. That the damages were excessive (by the inclusion, of interest) ; 2. That material evidence, had been discovered since the trial.

Re Alexander Muirhead, Insoj>vent. — Mr H. Howorth said that the time within which the creditors could apply for adjudication of bankruptcy expired to-day ; but the insolvent could not himself apply until Monday. He (Mr Howorth) did not know whether, seeing that there would not be a sitting ont Monday, or for some time after, His Honor would allow the insolvent now to* apply.

The Judge : Ido not think I haver power to adjudicate to-day. Mr Howorth : I think the Rules do not prevent it : they refer to vacations only in connection with the delivery of pleadings.

The Judge : The Judges at Home do not sit during vacation : even when a judgment is delivered in vacation, the Judges always ask permission. Our vacation has commerced. lam only sitting to-day afc the request of the profession ger-erally,. to enable time to be saved ; and that request 1 accept as equivalent to a consentIt is another matter, my acting under the* Bankruptcy Act.

Mr Howorth : The Act seems to take no notice whatever of tho vacations of the Supreme Court. But 1 shall be content if your Honor will allow the> Registrar to take a note that I applied, to-day.

The Judge : That shall be done.

Re John Adams.— Mr W. D. Stewart said that he had intended to apply for adjudication of bankruptcy in the case of. John Adams. The time had expired? but after the opinion just expressed, he (Mr Stewart) did not know whether His; Honor would grant adjudication. The Judge : As the time has expired, you may take "adjudication at the risk of its being superseded. Mr Stewart consented.

Revising Officer.— Mr E. P. Kenyon. was sworn as a Revising Officer undec: the Registration of Electors Act, 1866.