SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2299, 24 March 1898, Page 26

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. Friday, March 18. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) MILLS V ISAAC. Summons to dispose of two qu°stions reserved by previous orders made ia this action. Mr Chapman for the trustee?, Mr Fraser for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. Mouat for the infants. Ordered to stand on the lis 1 ". In connection with this cube, His Honor said tbat since the judgment of the Appeal Court had been given he had received several cuiiou.s communications on this matter. From Mr Isaac and from Mrs Isaac be bad received a pamphlet, with pome pictures of angels in ifc. Then he had received a letter from Mr Isaa', asking him, in the interests of common humanity, to review h's judgment in some way' or other. It was highly improper that these letters should have b?eu sent to him, and h» had returned them. These parties seemsd to think that his judgment, which applied the Statute of Liirjititioiis to the case, was incorrecc. Of course thfiir remedy was by appejl, and they aid not seem to have exercised the reins'ty. Tbat remedy was still open to the parties. Ie w.-u always in the power of tt,e Court of Appea l , if it; was thought that justice required it, to allow an ■appeal, although it was beyond the time limited fdr appealing 1 , so that there was a remedy at once open to the parties. He might also s.»y tuat since the judgment was delivered there had been other case* waicb. showed, to his miari, that tbera was no douot about the question aad that the Statute of Limitations applied ia the s*rae way as lis said it did. If there had been fra-.d tlxa case would have been different ; but ho thought; counsel would agrte that fraud was not alleged ia tho pleading, nor wai there any evidence of it, nor wim it suggested by .counsel at the hearing. Ml- Fraser : That is so. His Honor said that, of ourse, disposed of ths matter. RE THE CITY SAWIIILLING COMPANY (LIMITED). Motion to settle list of contributories The motion wan supported by Air Chapman. Mr Wooahouse, who appeared for th-j official liquidator of Walter Guthrie und Go. and the allied companies, said that with regard to the allied companies there was no dispute ; tbay agreed to be settled for the shares stated in the list. With regard to Waller tiuthrie and Cj., it was claimed that 5000 out of 700.1 shsivs for which it was a^lced ti settle faun on ihe list were fully paid up, and subject to that he agreed t:> their b' ing settled on the Iht. Mr Chapman was not prepai'ed to admit tbat the 5000 shares in question weivj fully paid up, and is was arranged that, as regards them, th« settlement of the list should stand over. Tiie list was settled as filed with regard to all other contributorie*. I'HB DUNEDIN TIMBER AMI HARDWARE COMPANY (LIMITED). ilotion to settle list of contributorie3. Mr Chapman supported the motion ; Mr Woodhouse appeared for the official liquidator of WMier Guthrie and Co. and the allied companic I*,1 *, and Mr Sim for Mr Walte. Guthrie and other coutributoriaa. Mr Woodhousa claimed that all sha r es for which ifc was sough., to settle Walter Guthrie and Co. and the allied companies ou the list weie faliy p;iid up. &3.1- Chapman admitted this with regard to the allied companies, aad they were accordingly settled on the list as holders of paid-up shares ; bub as to Walter Guthrie and Co., Mr Chapman disputed th"»t their shares were fully paid np, and with regard to them the settlement of the list was adjourned. Mr Sun .'aid that Mr Guthrie and several others of those for whom hn appeared claimed to be the holders of fully paid-up share*. Thia was admitted by Mr Chapman, and these contiibutories were settled on the list accordingly as ho'clets of paid-up shares. Mr Sim objected to John O"Sliea, whom it was sought to make liable in lespsct to 100 shares, being settled on the list, on the ground that Mr ONb-a had never applied for or accepted any shares, and his name hid never 'appeared on the company's register. Af ttr evidence by Mr O'Shea, his Honor struck hia name off the list. Mr Sim objected to W. E. Guthrie being settled on the list for more than 100 fully paid-up shares, the liquidators seeking to have him settled for 250 shares. Afier hearing counsel, the order was made as follows : " 150 out of 2~A) to come off the list ; the other 100 are fully paid up." 11. Guthrie was settled in the litt in respect to £50 shaies. Mr .lames appeared for Mid-j O'Connell, executrix of Mr George O'Drwcoll, whom it waa sought to include on ths list. After discussion, this case was ordered to stand over. IN BANCO. (Before his Honor Mr Justice William?.) COTTON AND KEALEY V. CAB.EW AND OTHERS. Motion for piohibition. The Hon. J. MacCliegor appealed for the plaiutiflffi. Mr Finch for the defendant William Armstrong Turn Lull. The other defendants (18. H. Care a% S.M., and W. O'Callaghan) were not renreaeuted. The defendant in prohibition, Turubull, had obtained a judgment against Cotton iv the Magistrate's Court in Dunediu, and in September last he applied for, and obtained, an attachment order directed to ihe Christshurch Trotting Club, attaching all debts owing by the club to Cotton, who, in the previous month, had rua » horse at

the club's meeting in his name and won a prize. The trotting club paid pait of that money into the court at Dunedin in satisfaction of the attachment, although advised at the time that it was not legally bound to do so because under section 7 of "Ths Gaming Act, 1594," neither Cotton nor anybody else could sue the club for the money. After that Kealey intervened and said that it was actually his ho se and not Cottou's that had won the race, and that the money, therefore, did not belong to Cotton, and he gave notice to the clerk of the court at Duaedin not to pay it over. Tae clerk of the court accordingly refused to pay it over, and Mr Carew, S M., held that he had no power to order its payment. Subsequently the clerk of the courc intimated to the agents of the plaintiffs in prohibition that if they did not take proceedings within a certain time he would p.iy the rnoiey over The plaintiffs now moved in consequence for prohibition, alleging that the order of attachment was ultra vires, the magistrate having no jurisdiction to make it, and that the mon»y really belonged to Kealey ; while for the defendant it was contended that the attachment order covered all moneys owing by the Trotting Club to Cotton, and that the club, by the payment or the money into court, had lecognised .». debt. A f ter argument, prohibition was refused, with costs (£lO 10\) and disbursements.