SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

Auckland Star, Volume II, Issue 563, 30 October 1871, Page 1 (Supplement)

SUPREME COURT.—In Banco.

WEDXiCSDAY, AUGUST 23. [Before His Honor Sir GL A. Arney, Knight, Chief Justice.] Macfablane and Another v. Harris — ihis whs an argument upon demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration.—Mr. MacCormick appeared *br the defendant, in support of the demurrer; Mr. Hesketh appeared lor the plaintiffs, in support of the declaration.—This was an action for specific relief, seeking to compel the defendant to perform an agreement alleged to have been come to ou the 11th of January, 187'). It was alleged that at the date mentioned the defendant was seized of a piece of land (one of the mill sites in the case of Mohi v. Craig), and that upon the settlement of an action (Burtt and Craig v. Harris), it was agreed that the defendant, Imsfcopher Atwell Harris, jun., was to have possession of the "site" and mill for twelve months, with option at the expiration of that term to purchase at a valuation, or otherwise. Craig was to pay him £'150, and to receive a conveyance of the land, it was stated in the progress of the proceedings that the day after the twelve month j expired the defendant was asked whether ha was prepared to comply with the stipulations or' the agreement. Tlie defendant refused to execute any agreement whatever. It was also alleged that the other party to the agreement— Thomas Craig—tendered to C. A. Harris, th" defendant, the sura of £150, as provided for by the covenants of the agreement. —Mr. Mnc Joriniek was heard at great length in support of the demurrer.

*I is argument Ijad not concluded when the Court adjourned, at midday.—Upon the reassembling of the Court, the learned counsel proceeded with his argument. There were no less than twelve grounds of demurrer, some of which were of a purely technical character, and need not, therefore, be detailed. One was, that tins chose (thing) in action had been assigned to the plaintiff by Craig, and, therefore, such an action could be brought, ihis was a personal contract. There had been no time given to carry out the contract Air. .VlacCormick went through the points seriatim, and said the declaration was and asking that the demurrer should be allowed.—Mr. Hesketh was heard in reply, contending that under the conveyance ordinance they could assign the chose (thing) iv action. He . denied that t!ii« was a personal action, such, as contemplated by the defendant's counsel. Tile learned counsel spike at great length upon.the several issues. Tlie Court rose at twenty minutes to six o'clock. — Herald.