Supreme Court.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 648, 21 June 1870, Page 2

Supreme Court.

■» This Dat. (Before Mr Justice Greaaon.) His Honor sat in the Court Chambers, at eleven o'clock this morning. In Banco, gbaham v. peffebbll — judgment. His Honor: This was an . application for leave to sign interlocutory judgment nunc pro tune, although there had been a trial of the issue* of fact. Upon the hearing it was contended, on behalf of the defendants, and authorities were cited to show, that the Court would not grant a motion where the laches had been those of the party making it, and not caused by anything in the Court itself* The counsel who moved on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the form of the notice was incorreot-r-that it was not necessary to apply at all to sign nunc pro tune — that, in fact, there was sufficient upon the record to show that it was unnecessary further to sign the interlocutory judgment, and that all that was wanted was to sign final judgment. There is little in our rules from which we can gather a settled practice. The 224 th rule appears to be the only one bearing on it, and that does not decide the question. It was argued for the defendants that it did implied ly show that interlocutory judgment must be signed before final judgment; and it seems to imply, as will be the case generally, that interlocutory judgment will be signed shortly after judgment is obtained, but I don't think it decides the question one way or the other. I find that the practice in the office has been to follow the English practice, and enter a peremptory rule to sign judgment before the trial «f the issues of fact ; and looking at the substance of the application I don't see why a party may not sign interlocutory judgment at. any time before the signing of the final judgment. lam not disposed, in the absence of any rules settling the question, to depart from the English practise and the practice of the office without seeing some reason for doing bo. I see no reason to depart from the practice of entering a peremptory rule and; signing judgment, and I don't see, according to the English practice, that there is anything to prevent signing interlocutory judgment after trial of the issues of fact, provided it be signed befora' signing the final judgment ; and therefore I don't see now why the plaintiff may not get all that he wants by signing the interlocutory judgment now, and then at any time afterwards signing final judgment. I have given the matter a good deal of consideration, and I cannot concur altogether with your argument, Mr Gnrrick, as I understood it, that there was sufficient on the record to show that it is unnecessary to Bign interlocutory judgment. It

appears to me that the Registrar was quite light in declining to proceed at he was asked to do, because there was a departure from the practice; and I state now that it is always the duty of an officer, whenever there is a departure from the practise, to lay the matter before the Court. It will then be necessary to come to the court. With regard to the question as to costs, I am of Opinion that the motion was misconceived to a certain extent by the plaintiffs. It being tke laches of the plaintiff, I think, upon the whole, that the fairest order is, that the plaintiff should pay the costs. I think it will save expense if I fix the costs, and I think six guineas would be fair. Order made for leave to sign interlocutory judgment ; plaintiff to pay costs of motion. CLEABT T. HADFIELD. The argument of the demurrer in this case was postponed until Friday next. In Bankruptcy. obdbbß of adjudication. His Honor made orders of adjudication in the following cases : — Be Charles French Femberton (MrCottrell); creditors to meet at the Registrar's Chambers, on Wednesday, the 29th June, at 1 1 o'clock. Re Thomas Roberts (Mr Bamford); creditors to meet at noon on June 79. Re William J. Walter (Mr Bamford) ; creditors to meet at one o'clock on the 29 tb June. Re John Henry Jackson (.Mr Garrick.) The Registrar intimated that this was a Timaru case. His Honor said that in many Timaru cases the proceedings had fallen through in consequence of the meetings of creditors being fixed to be held there. Mr Garrick Baid he was entirely in the hands of his constituents. Mr Graham (Provisional Trustee) said it would be far wiser if a rule were made to have all the meetings held in Christchurch. His Honor concurred, remarking that on several occasions the fixing of the meetings at Timaru had led to the setting aside of the proceedings. He must say, however, that from the experience he bad of Mr White the other day, he seemed to', conduct his business in a very satisfactory manner. The meeting of creditors was fixed to be held at the Registrar's Chambers, Cbriatchurcb, on June 29, at 2 o'clock. Re William Henry Turner Mr Slater) ; creditors to meet on Thursday, June 30, at 11 o'clock. Be Charles Wilson— Timaru case— (Mr Garrick) ; creditors to meet at the Registrar's Chambers on Thursday, the 30th June, at 12 o'clock. Re John Thomson— Timaru case— -(Mr Garrick) ; creditors to meet at the Registrar's Chambers, on June 30, at 1 o'clock. Re Henry Simpson (Mr Slater) ; creditors to meet on the 30th June, at 2 o'clock. Re Thomas Richard Westlake (Mr Slater) ; creditors to meat on the 30th June, at 3 o'clock. LAST EXAMINATIONS. Re Charles Shead Odell. Last examination, Monday, the 27 th June. Re William Leslie (Mr Slater for Mr Joynt). Last examination, Thursday, the 28th July. Re Horatio James Wood (Mr Slater for Mr Joynt). Last examination, Thursday, the 28th July. Re Patrick Frederick Sinclair Miller (Mr Slater). Last examination, Thursday, the 28th July. 'ADJUDICATION ANNULLED. On the application of Mr Cottrell, bis Honor made an order annulling the order of adjudication previously made in re Charles Flockton. .