SUPREME COURT.-IN BANCO.

Otago Witness, Issue 1323, 7 April 1877, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.-IN BANCO.

' Tuesday^ 27ih Maboh. . ' *' , . I (Before Hia Honour Mr Justice Williams.) j HttL V. ANDOEW AND HILL V. ANDREW. , 1 Mx Macassey, on behalf of the plaintiffs in above caaes, moved for 'rules "nisi, calling on the" defendant to 7 show cause why new. trials should not be granted.' '•* " - " ■• ■ " * ' j Hia Honour reserved his 'decision.' ' •' S ' ROBERTSON V. HOSS. ' ' i Mr Macassey, moved for a rule nisf calling on defendant to' show cause why a now trial should not be granted. ' The grounds were : — That the findings tof the Jury' in a number of material issues were uncertaic, and not conclusive, and such as the learned tjTudge should not have accepted, inasmuch as the findings amounted ' to an assertion of law upori.' the evidence adduced 1 at the trial Non-direction dri the part of the learned Judge] That' the findings' of "the Jury we're unsupported'by the evidence; .That the learned Judge wrongly admitted a bill of coats' in/evidence. '' " "" ' i His Honour; said bJe thought Mr Macassey was entitledtoa rule. "He wasinclinea to , think that his direction should have gone' fuirliher than it did, and that at any' rate he should havestated to the.Juiy as a matter of ' equity from the evidence that the alleged ante-nuptial • contract could not be treated as a contract, and that all subsequent contracts must be treated as voluntary, and must stand or fall according to tbe rules or principles of equity which regulate voluntary contracts. Rule nisi granted. The Court adjourned till next day. Tuesday, 27th Mabch. (Before His Honour IMr Justice Williams.) T. HECL V. AKDBEW, AND J. HILL V. AWDBEW. ' His Honour granted rules nisi moved for by Mr Macassey, calling upon defendant to show cause why new trials should not < be granted; the argument to be taken in chambers. • STAMPEB V. TUBNBOLL. Argument of demurrers. Plaintiff demurred to defendant's pleas, and there was also a crossdemurrer, the defendant demurring to plaintiff's replication. Mr E. C. Cook appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and Mr Macassey for defendant. After argument, His Honour reserved his decision. The Court adjourned till next day.