SUPREME COURT.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 267, 15 December 1914, Page 10

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. His Honour Mr Justice Denniston sat in. the x Supreme Court in banco this morning. The first case called was that of Newlyn v. Frank Evans, a motion for an order restricting the defendant from issuing rolls of electors for Christchureh North, bearing the name of the plaintiff as registrar. The plaintiff appeared in person, and the defendant was represented by Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C. Newlyn explained that he had been registrar of electors for Christchureh North, and the action of the defendant in keeping his name on the rolls had resulted* in his receiving numerous complaints from people whose names had been left off the roll, etc. Mr Raymond said that the defendant would undertake that no further rolls would bear the name of the plaintiff, who expressed himself as satisfied. No further action was therefore necessary.

In the case of Roydon P. Granger and 11. D. Acland (Mr Rowe) v. Bertram G. Harborow, an originating summons under the Mortgages Extension Act, 1914, his Honour decided against the plaintiffs, and dismissed the summons, with costs £5 5/-. In the case of Alfred Richard Butcher (Mr Van Asch) v. Thomas Maude, a similar application, an order was made lay consent. The case of Charles Howard Tripp and another (Mr Harper) v. the Official Assignee, in the estate of Walter Shaw, was ordered to stand over until after the vacation. A first mortgage, represented by Mr Dougall, had been served, but the necessary seven days between the date of service and the date of hearing had not yet elapsed. In the case of Robert Bayley (Mr Hunt) v. A. J. J. Brown, a similar application, there was also short service. His Honour ordered the matter to stand over. Still another phase of the Myers-Cro-zier litigation, which has been before various courts in all kinds of forms, came before his Honour in the case of J. H. Myers v. A. H. Crozier, a motion to rescind an order allowing an appeal. Myers appeared in person; there being no appearance on behalf of the defendant. Myers's application was, in effect, that he (his Honour) should set aside his own decision allowing an appeal by Crozier from a magistrate's decision. After considerable argument with Myers, who found great difficulty in differentiating between a matter of fact and a question of law, his Honour said that he had no power to grant the application, and could no T t consider it. He could hardly believe that a solicitor could have been got to prepare the papers, and he was ,hot surprised that the solicitor had not the courage to appear in Court in support of the motion. IN DIVORCE. In the case of Clough y. Clough, a motion was made for allotment-of permanent alimony. Mr Meares appeared £ oi? the petitioner, there being no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Mr Meares said that the petitioner asked [for an. order for £l'a week, which was i.iess than a third of the respondent's net income. As she was keeping the three children, the demand was a modest one.

His Honour pointed out that the summons served on the respondent mentioned no specific date of hearing. He therefore ordered the case to stand over until after the vacation, to enable the respondent to be re-servetl.