JAMES NICOLL V. F. P. CORKILL.

Taranaki Herald, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5896, 23 October 1885, Page 2

JAMES NICOLL V. F. P. CORKILL.

Mr. Samuel appeared on bchalEof the defendant in support of a summons calling upon the plaintiff to show why the motion in the case Nicoll v. Corkill for damig»:B should not be stayed, on ths ground that it was vexatious and oppreshivo, anl an abuse of the process of the law. Mr. T. llutchißon appeared oa behalf of the plaintiff to oppose. Mr. Samuel read the affidavit of Mr. Corkill, showing that in March the plaintiff brought a precisely similar action against him ; Uiat it cams on for trial on 30th April, and was dismissed with costs ; that it was again reinstated, unJ came on for tiial on 6th May, when it was again dismissed with costs ; that costs had been taxed at £58 6s. 4i. on 16th June last, but no payment had been mado. Mr. S.imuel quoted numerous authoriths, showing that the Court will prevent a plaintiff from bringing a second action for the same purpose until the costs of the first action have been paid, tho bringing oE the second action under such circumstances being, in the words of Lord Justice Cotton, a vexation. Mr. Hutchison iv reply contended that this rule should not apply where tho case for the plaintiff has not been fully goue into upon the hearing of the first action, and as in this case the first action had been dismissed only owing to the non-appear-ance or! the plaintiff, the second action should not be stayed. Mr. Samuel in answer to this objection cited the recent case noted in the Law Times of August 15th of this year, but not yet reported, in which Mr. Justice t Kay had stayed proceedings in a precisely similar case and in which the Court of Appeal hud upheld the order. The Registrar stated that he had no doubt whatever that the bringing of a second action was vexatious, and he ordered the proceedings to be stayed, with costs against ths plaintiff to the amount of £4. NICOLL V. CORKILL AND NATHAN. This was an action brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, who were trustees of the plaintiff's estate, to recover £2000 for malicious prosecution. Mr. Samuel appeared for the defendants, who defended separately, in support of summonses to show cause why the proceedings should not be stayed against each on the ground that the action was vexatious , and an abuse of the process of the Court. Mr. Hutchison appeared for the plaintiff. The facts were similar to those in the case o£ Nicoll v. Corkill, and the cases cited were the same. After hearing counsel fully the Registrar held that the actions were really and sub- | atautially for the same purpose, and that the plaintiff should pay the costs of the former before proceeding further with the latter action. An order was accordingly I mado as respects the defendant Nathan with £4 costs against the plaintiff, and as respects the defendant Corkill with 17s costa against tho plaintiff. This terminated tho sitting of the Court.