SUPREME COURT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 33, 23 September 1911, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

NE W PLY AIOUTH—FiII DA Y. Rc Waiter Wilkes. Mr Hutchen, on behalf of the Taranaki District Law Society, applied for an order making absolute a rule nisi to strike Walter Wilkes off the role of solicitors. His Honor pointed out that only the Court of Appeal could strike a solicitor off the roll. He could suspend him. Mr Hutchen said it was not necessary to suspend Wilkes, as no was already out of the Dominion. His Honor said that, as he considered the rule should be made absolute, he would reserve the matter for the Court of Appeal, in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Reducing the : ’• n On the application of Mr Hutchen, on behalf of all the parties, further adjournments till next session were, granted in the cases of Quin Bros. v. South Taranaki Winter . Show Company, Ltd., and Robert William Bond and Bond’s trustees, a claim under the Wages Protection and Contractors Liens Act, 1908, for £486 16s 7d, and Bennett and Sutton v. the same, a similar claim for £303 12s 4d. Mr Johnstone, acting for plaintiff, intimated that the case of Frederick George Smith v. Elisabeth John Theobald (Mr Spence), claim for specific performance of an agreement to exchange properties, had been settled out of Court, as .well as a counter-; claim in -this case. > Jlf j Judgment for plaintiff, .'by consent, was entered in tiro case of the PiQjiic j Trustee (Mr Johnstone) v. ThomfiT Has tie and Jessie Eva rfastie, of Tiriß rakawa (Mr Roy), claim under a m.oi’trgage for the following moneys: £3014' 7s, principal; £784 17s 2d, ; money, paid out for ground rent, taxes, etc'.,' on .> the property comprising the security; and £llO6 Is 9d, interest to June’23rd last; and also for interest from June 23rd to the date of judgment. Mr Roy applied for a stay of immediate execution, but this was refused. Mr Spence, for the defendants, stated that a settlement had been arrived a,t in the matter of the originating summons, Walter Revell Colson James (Mr Quilliam) v. John Hurley and Michael O’Sullivan, a claim under the Family Protection Act, in the matter of the estate of the late Mary James, late of Hurleyville. Plaintiff’ was deceased’s husband, and the defendants are her trustees and executors. Plaintiff claimed that his wife made a will leaving him with inadequate-, support, and ho asked for AW order for £3 per week from the date of his wife’s death, or for such order as the Court thinks fit. To allow the settlement (the terms of which were' not announced) to be carried out, the. case was adjourned till next. sossipn--k-H. “News.” ’ id;'