NAPIER.

Thames Star, Volume IX, Issue 3042, 14 November 1878, Page 2

NAPIER.

Wednesday. Charles Stewart, late landlord of the Pacific Hotel, Harelock, was committed for trial to day on a charge of larceny of a quantity of jewellery delivered to him in a registered post-office packet, but which should hare been delivered to Charles Stuart, at the Criterion Hotel. Bail was refused.

There were over forty applications for the mastership of tiie Napier District School. The commulee decided to re* commend the following:—Mr Thompson (Greymouth), head master; Mr Murray (Dunedin), second master; Mr Wright (Napier), third master. There was also a very large number of applications for appointment as mistress. The committee selected Mrs Stanley (Wellington), and Miss Mann (of Auckland) for infant teacher. .

The Court of Appeal sat for the first time to-day for the despatch of business. There were present on the Bench the Chief Justice, Judges Johnston, Grillies, and Williams. After some discussion several cases were put low on the list to enable counsel engaged to secure time to reach Wellington, notably the case of Clarke r. Grey, in which James Smith, of Dunedin, and theAttorney-Gerieral are engaged. Brigham v. Morton and others was then proceeded with. This is an Auckland case. It seems Mr Brissenden agreed to mortgage certain land to one Mr Brigham, but the agreement, which was in waiting, was not registered. Mrs Brisserden subsequently conveyed the property to respondents, Morton and others, for ti.e benefit of her creditors. Under that conveyance the property was sold and dealt with in favor of the credi-

tors. Brigham, when he heard of this, instituted proceedings to get an account from the respondents, and their reply set up this deed of assignment, and denied any liability to render an account to Brigham. The plaintiff's object is to upset the docd. The case bristles with technicalities, and is very involved, and comes before the Court as an appeal against the decision of the Court below upon a second demurrer. Mr Hesketh represents the appellant. The Attorney-General and Mr Travers appear on the other side. The case occupied the Court ft" day, and judgment was reserved.