SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5730, 25 November 1896, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

._ — ♦ IN BANCO. "Wednesday, Nov; 25. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) His Hononsat in Banco at 11 a.m. KINLEY V. BARRETT:Mr Stringer applied that this case, an appeal from the Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, might be allowed to< stand over, on account of the absence of- counsel on the other side. After a brief discussion his Honor said that he would allow the case to stand over to Friday next. m'ferban v. m'fekrax. Mr Stringer asked that this case, an appeal from the Magistrate's Court, Christchurch, might be allowed to stand over, Mr Kippenberger, who was engaged in it, being unable to attend. His Honor, after some discussion, agreed to allow the case to stand over to Friday next. GEARSCHAWSKI V. LARGE. This was a motion for leave to issue a writ of attachment. Mr Stringer appeared, for the plaintiff, and Mr Deacon for the defendant. Mr Deacon said that after consultation with his learned friend he was satisfied that the defendant had not carried out the decree of the Court, and he was willing that some competent person should be appointed to carry out the work. Mr M'lntyre should be appointed to do so, and that appointment would be satisfactory. His Honor said that that could be arranged between the parties. After a brief discussion, the motion was ordered to stand over for fourteen days to allow of the decree of the Court being carried out under proper supervision as. suggested. KINGSWELL V. GIMAN. Mr Stringer, for the defendant, movedfor a writ of certiorari removing the action of Kingswell v. Giman, from the District Court into the Supreme Court, under section 116 of the District Court Act, 1858. ; Mr Joynt appeared to oppose the motion. Mr Stringer stated that the action was one for misrepresentation in connection with negotiations for the purchase of certain Mining Companies. The amount claimed was .£319. The grounds for removal were that difficult questions of law might arise, and that several other actions might be brought against the defendant on similar lines. If juries were empanelled in all these, and they were heard in the District Court at Eeefton, it might be difficult to find, sufficient jurymen who were not in some way or another interested. Mr Joynt submitted that the reasons alleged were not sufficient, and that, as the plaintiffs' witnesses and others concerned in the case were at Eeefton, where the District Court sat, it would cause great expense to remove the hearing to the Supreme Court sitting at Holdtika. Ho pointed out that the case would be tried in the District Court before a Judge of great ability a-nd long experience — Judge Ward. Mr Stringer suggested that perhaps I the difficulty might be met by the case being tried before the Judge alone. Mr Joynt said that he had no authority to say anything on that point. After further discussion his Honor said that there was a great deal in what had been said on both sides, and he quite recognised, the, difficulties which might arise were the cases tried in Eeefton and application made for juries. He would suggest that counsel should communicate with the parties and ascertain whether they were willing to have the case tiied in the District Court before the judge alone. The application was allowed to stand over for that purpose. [Per Press Association.! AUCKLAND, Nov. 25. Solomon Solomon alias Samuels pleaded guilty to four charges of over-selling mining shares. His counsel undertook that the money so obtained would be returned. The accused was admitted to probatio2i for twelve months.