SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5583, 5 June 1896, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

„ , IN CHAMBERS. Friday, June 5. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) His Honor held a sitting in Chambers at 10 a.m. PROBATE. On the motion of Mr Widdowson, his Honor granted probate of the will of James Baxter, deceased. TOD V. TOWNSHEND. Mr Wilding moved for the confirmation of the Registrar's report, and his Honor made the order as prayed. BOYD V. WILSON. On the motion of Mr Wilding, his Honor granted an order for a special jury of four herein, and fixed the hearing for July 6. POrHAM V. TAYLOR. Mr Bruges, for plaintiff, applied for interrogatories in this case, an action for damages for alleged slander. Mr Fleshor appeared for the defendant, and said that he had an objection to one interrogatory asked for, No. 4, on the ground that the matter was not relevant. It made no difference to the plaintiff, he said, whether or not the defendant knew that the reporters were present when he made the statement which formed the cause of the action. His Honor said that it seemed to him strictly relevant, as bearing on the question of malice. In an interrogatory any question could be asked which could be asked of a witness in the box, and this question certainly could. Mr Flesher said that the defendant objected to No. 5, as it was not only irrelevant but fishing. His Honor remarked that all questions were, in a degree, fishing. This was not unduly so. ' ... Mr Flesher said that the defendant furthex- contended that Nos. 8 and 9 were not only irrelevant and fishing, but were not ioiuXfidc for the purpose of the action. He quoted authorities to show that the rule against fishing interrogatories applied in cases where the question was of a nature tending not to support the case, but to enable the party to make a casei His Honor said that he agreed with Mr Flesher. It did not seem to him that these questions were fair. Mr Bruges contended that No. 9, at all events, was fair. His Honor said that he was not sure that the question would be allowed in a witness-box. He would not allow 8 and 9. Mr Flesher said that the defendant contended that 10 and 11 were on the same footing. His Honor said that he did not think that they were. After some further conversation, his Honor "allowed the interrogatories, except Nos. 8 and 9. Mr Bruges said h.j wished the replies to be in as soon as possible. . He suggested that it should be within seven days. Mr Flesher said that he thought that his client should be allowed ten days. After further discussion, his Honor ordered the interrogatories to be answered within ten days. Mr Bruges moved for a special jury cf twelve, and for an order fixing the date of trial. Mr Fleshev objected that he had not' been served with due notice of the suLimons. Mr Bruges said that he did not object to an adjournment, but he wished to set down the case for the present sittings, as the next sittings would not be until the end of August. His Honor said that, of course, parties who were not ready for the coming sittings, must expect to have to wait for the next. Mr Flesher said that the defendant would be ready to go on next week. Mr Bruges mentioned that it was intended to apply for a commission to take evidence at Gore. Mr Flesher said that the defendant would prefer the case to be tried before a common jury. His Honor thought that the plaintiff would not be prejudiced by the summons being adjourned. After a desultory discussion, the further hearing of the summons was adjourned to next Chamber sittings. TPer Press Association.! WELLINGTON, June 4. The Supreme Court was occupied all day with the trial of Andrew Suttie, a commercial traveller, who was indicted on a charge of having, at Carterton, made a false declaration before two Justices of the Peace that he saw drinking, dancing and other irregularities going on in two hotels at Carterton during prohibited hours, and that a constable was drinking at both houses. The case has already been before the public in various forms. The justices brought Suttie's allegations as to the constable and publicans before the local Licensing Committee, and, as a result of what transpired at that meeting, prosecutions were instituted against the licensees of the two hotels concerned. The cases were dismissed, and then a warrant was issued for the apprehension of Suttie, who, however, had by this time left the colony. He was eventually arrested in Sydney and brought back. The case, which had not finished when the Court rose for the day, will probably be concluded to-morrow. WELLINGTON, June 5. In the Supremo Court Suttie was acquitted on the charge Of making a false declaration before Justices at Carterton. All the witnesses examined to-day proved that at the time of making the declaration the accused was in such a condition that he was not aware of what ho was doing, and by direction of the Chief Justice the jury, without leaving the box, returned a verdict of " Not guilty."