SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXXII, Issue 11401, 13 May 1889, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

' Saturday, Mat 11*h. ' ' Boforo His . Honor, Chipf Justice Sir : James Prendergast.) ' BANK OF AUSTRALASIA V. PATEA BUIDING society— £l229 6s sd. ■ V Upon the Court resuming on Saturday morning, Mr Fitzhorbert, referring to this case, said it wfys 1 in a confused position at prosont, and he aridMr Barhicoat.. had agreed to ask that it should bo reserved for further consideration, and be argued in Wellington at somo f uturo time by mutual consent. Mr Barnicat proposed to move for j udgment or in th c alter; native for a now trial.' MCGREGOR V. SUN INSURANCE C 0. —.£300. Mr Barnicoat' asked that judgment .bo entered up' in tho case of McGregor' v. the Sun Fire Insurance Company for ,£3OO. . ■ • . ' I < : 1 ■Mr Fitzhorbort was quite agreeable to this course, but thought that interest could hardly be allowed ; that, howeve'r,ho left to his Honor. Ho thought that there were grounds for asking that costs should not bo given against nhe company, as there wore elements of suspicion which warranted them in bringing the i case. ■ . •■ ■ ' '• ' ' His Honor agreed, and said that this . was. different to some insurance cases where companies were ill-advised in declining to pay. ,-. '. . Mr Fitzhorbort thought the company had been misled by Mrs McGregor's own ' evidence at tho inquest,' arid the verdict ' really amounted to not proven. Judgment was then entered up for 1 .£3OO, with interest f roni ' January 10th till judgment, and costs on the middle ' scale. As to the Phconix Company's risk, Mr Barnicoat mentioned that a settlement had been arrived at for .£75 in.fnll satisfaction of the claim. ' He found there was | no doubt they had a good le^al defence, ' on the ground that the pohciqs in the 1 Northern and the Sun wore not noted. No blame was attachable to. Mrs. Mc- ■ Gregor in the matter, but tho head office of the Phoenix would have thought they had a single insurance They had therefore good grounds for thinking they wero not liable to pay. , „ 1 WAVISRLEY TOWN BOARD V.' THE QUEEN . ; The Chief Justice intimated that it was his purpose to deliver a written judgment in the case of the Waverley Town ,'Board v. tho Queen and the Patea , Borough Council, after he had consulted' the Vie- ; torian Statues, on which, the N.Z. ;/ and Crown Suits Act was passed.' So, however,, would intimate tho. conclusion ho had' come to, that the fees in .respect of Mr ; Cowern's licenses n.B an auctioneer had been properly paid to the Patea Borough Council, because he was described (as ap--1 peared to be required by the Act) as car-, ry.ing'dn business thore.. > It • apparently was the intention of the Legislature that 1 such revenue as license fees-should be regarded as local revenue, and as a license ■ -'issued, as this undoubtedly was; uhder'an' ! ordinance in force'< J only in the provincial - " district of Wellington, .should not be ■ paid to a local body outside that district ; yqt, although ,'soiie CoiJl usiofcjn&d,t a^jsen, itlseemed that tho money had readied its proper destination. The Chtef Justice further stated that he did not, as at pre,sent advised, consider the suit one which could be maintained against the Crown, . ' because the money was never intended to form .part cf the general reyenue, but might be paid over, by tho 'officer ap'-' pointed to receive it, direct to the local body, in tho same way as the clerk of a Resident Magistrate's Court might pay 1 byer money received by him to tho suecessfui parly in a Case; As 1 to costs, his Honor considered that;. as; the. case was one proper to be tested, and as there appeared to be no othor way of bringing the points in controversy to a conclusion than by such a suit as the present one, the Crown' shpuld not claim costs against the . Waverley Town ißpard. As to the Pa.tea~ Borough Council, it had been brought in by the Crown, against which it now sought to have costs : but as it appeared to him that the Patea Borough' Council might have' been content to 'leave the case to the defence of the Crown, no costs would be ordered.! DIXON V. BELL. In this case Mr Esam appeared for tho plaintiff and Mr Barnicoat for tho dofondant. This was a rlaim for the enforcement of a contract for the salo of a section of land. After hearing tho evidence on both sides, which was of somo length, judgment was glvon for defendant, with costs.