SUPREME COURT:—In Banco.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 533, 18 October 1871, Page 2

SUPREME COURT:—In Banco.

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 18

rßefore His Hon^r Sir »>>. A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.]:

The Court sat in Banco this morning. His | Honor disposed of the following business : — j Fkrtlandiz (The Ha^elbank G-old Mm. ! WG COMPANT) J. CROfBIE AND OtHKBS.— | : lis Honor delivered judgment upon an appli•ution by Mr. Bees. w-fih. a supplemental bill. The action was tried nt the June session of the Circuit Court (Cifii. Sitti»*s)- .and. jbe jury J oun<l a verdict fbV*T^:'^TTO«flll,(lß' upoil UltrEi"^ issues except one. Upon this i?sue they for g ihat the phdritiff* had "certai.i rigli s"o.-,f. he mine. '1 he'defendants (Qrdibie, Steph. \7

ion, and Smith) applied to" the Court t.\ | .he action should be discharged. Theplai j .iff-! thereupon applied to the Court for a sup elemental bill, so as< to enable the Court to letermine the issue. The argument upon the ipplioation-to,discharge the uction was taken it the last sitting of, the Coui-t in Banco, and t was arranged that the costs of the cro-s •uiits should abide the decisionof the Court. His Hpnor)npw gave judgment, and ordered the aoriou to be .dismissed with-costs, and the injunction dissolved. AJ ~.;

Jiliiciio.i u.s>« v ». Saukbbie^ v. DifcwouTH. —Mr. M^cOor- ■ liick moved" the Court' for a decree in the •etiiinywh.ch wastrtyd at. the lust Civil Sittings of the Circuit Court.—-Mr. Bees moved .he Court to grant a new trial, upon, the ground that the Court refused to admit evidence that a,, sum of £500 had been remitted to plaintiff" >y Mr. Cox, solicitor, as part of the £1000 advanced by Mr. Dilwortli upon the mortgage ' leed, It will be recollected that the defenlunt advanced the last mentioned sum upon the security of certain l.uid in Princes-street, rjiojjlaiatiff.diowiiver, denied all knowledge of tho deed, and broughtjpn action'for specific1' telief in order that the a eel might be given up and cancelled. The fury found for the pliaiutiff.—His donor sail the parties at the trial were not prepared to enter into the ace >uuts between Cox-tYd- Sauerbier. That najving been bo 'the qv> itidn did hot arise whether t an jfor !snoney; ; had (.nfi, tt^jj oetvetX *oe ' againet tlie plaintiff (**tr StiU'rbhr). I he p'aii.tif,, in his declaration, stated that he never reoel'-ed or borrowed, any money frouif tfie'tielfendaiA, nor did he receive auy. part- of .the-, said* sum of a thousand I outids'lroiH'Cox.—Mr. llees said that it was .ho\wjt!atrtttihe .-trial-that certain sums *#ere* ijemitted to Mr. Saueri j?r, by Cox.,!ahdi,Shir. question was whether ;b.e receipt of these surn^firgrfti CoiX .WM inot a portion* of- the imdney advanced by Mr. Dilwpv'h. ,to. .C.Q$, being then the agent for ''se plaintiff. What the defendant wanted to j [jfpve was that it Ivas under the deed that Cox Knitted the money —that Cox could not h. ft; bad the money (£§UO), except by^Vir'ttte'cL'ttrhe deed, and the [Jlainiiff, haying reived that sum, could not expect that tho deed should be given up and i&ncelled until he had an counted to Mr. Dil- \ wOrth for that amount. - lis Honor granted ii\ule nisi for a new trial, and the motion for a* 2Jecj.ee.ordered-tostand .'V«r. ■•-■ - —~- A;djouunkd.—-Thomas' \,._ Dixon; Lascelles . v.Thetldliij-O'tilVoiiteiSfef; MiningCooipihy; Workman v. Burgess :,4_piay v.. Grosbie.