SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 1124, 18 December 1914, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

cite SITTINGS.

(Before his Honor Mr Justice Dennis ton.) RESERVED JUDGMENT.

In the case of the King.v. Turnbull and M'Beth reserved "judgment was given, Mr S. G. Raymond, K.C., appearing for the Crown and Mr Weston for the defendants. The case was one arising out of the Customs frauds, and there was a claim for duty by the Crown. The defence set up was that the connivance or collusion in the hand of a servant of the Crown had set aside the right of the Crown to maiio claim against parties innocent of fraud. His Honor held that the defence was untenable, and ordered the payment of all duties due, with ccsts on the lowest scale.

Reserved judgment was also given in More (Mr F. Wilding, K.C., with him Mr A. T. Donnelly) v. the More Patent Mantle Preserver Company (Mr E. 'x Harper), in which there was a claim for specific performance of an agreement to purchase a patent from the plaintiff. The defence set up was that the recipe sold to the company was incorrect, and required considerable revision, at the hands of plaintiff and others before satisfactory results, were obtained, and it was claimed that there was an implied guarantee that the recipe was correct in the first place, and that a non-suit should be entered. His Honor held that no such implied guarantee or warranty existed in the case' of the sale of this patent. •• There was no suggestion of fraud on the part of the plaintiff. Judcment wou'd be for the plaintiff, and the defendant company would be non-suited on its counter claim. Costs would bo allowed on the middle scale. (Before his lienor Mr Just ; ce Sim.) M' MILL AN v. MORROW. Duncan M'Millan (Mr Bewick) proceeded against William Morrow (Mr Wilding, K.C., with Rim Mr A. T. Donpraving for an injimctici. restraining tTie defendant, who had agreed to sell certain'land to the. plaintiff ."from forfeiting deposit and instalment paid by plaintiff, or from exercising an alleged right of sale of the land until such time as the defendant could establish his right to payment for a certain number of acres in dispute. The parties were, both farmers at Dorje. and there was an agreement for sale and purchase at £l2 an acre, made between the parties. The land was shewn on the sale plan as consisting of acres, but the defendant had subsequently claimed that the acreage was 180 acres. The plaintiff denied,that the extra acreage existed, statins that it had been washed away by the river.