SUPREME COURT.-This Day.

Auckland Star, Volume VI, Issue 1656, 9 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.-This Day.

IN BANC(\ (Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies.) Bond v. Witheford.— Costß The question of costs, which had been I reserved in this, case, after its settlement in favour of the plaintiff at the last sitting 0 " ' the Court was decided this morning. * His Honor stated that he saw no reason to depart from the general rule, and costs would therefore go with the judgment. Williamson v. Peab.se. This was originally an action for specific relief under an agreement. The plaintiff through Mr Gardiner, had leased to defendant in November 1871, a piece of land at Coro mandel. Certain roads indicated on a plan produced were stated by the plaintiff to have been accepted in the agreement. No such exception, was, however, mentioned in the lease. After coming into possession of the pro. perty the defendant had stopped theroad, and the action was brought to compel observance of what plaintiff maintained was the tenor of " the agreement. When the case was heard his Honor gave it as his opinion that there was no evidence to go before a jury upon the ' first (and principal) issue t viz , " Was it alao agreed that the land indicated on the plan should be excepted from the lease?" and directed a nonsuit, which was accepted with permission to move for a new trial. A rule nisi was granted at the last sittings. Mr Hssketh now applied that the rule be made absolute. Mr Rees showed cause agaicsfc it. In commencing his argument the learned counsel took exception to the wording of the rule nisi, which ran " that there was evidence adduced to support a finding of the jury in the affirmative on the Ist issue." This Mr Eecs contended was not enough to reopen the case upon. It should have been "that there was evidence adduced, sufficient to" fee. The learned gentleman then pro-: ceeded to argue against the rule on the merits of the evidence. Mr Hesketli followed in support of the rule. He maintaiued that there was a question for the jury, inasmuch as there was an inconsistency between the statements of Messrs Pearse and Gardiner's about excepting the roads, and it was for a jury to decide which was right. As to Mr Rees' argument that the wording of the rule was insufficient, he would respectfully submit that if there was the siight'. si; bit of evidence in support of the issue, bis Honor's direction was wrong. His Honor reserved.his decision till next Wednesday. GHENWOOD V. CROWN PSINCE GOLDM3NING COMPANY. Taia case was postponed for a fortnight.