SUPREME COURT SESSIONS.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 750, 24 February 1910, Page 8

SUPREME COURT SESSIONS.

'. -. .iii;.-,.'' sTEOTTING ASSOCIATION DISPUTE. . ' " (By ' Telegraph —Press Association.) '.; ■ . CBristchurch, February 22...

' 'At "the': SupremS('Gburt ;fo';^^.in'; the' application'of. John'j'Hiima for; an .to-' junction the'.'lh'otttngVA^oci^. tion' frorn, disqualtfyiiig 1 him, ;• Judge Sim, in judgment, jj;TO: ; no^a.,i of the' Supreme Court to" Mt .M Cpurt of J "Appeal from' the decisions of such,bodies ; as the.association, ; and. the, only'ground_ of, » interference woiild; be/.that..'-the • deciHoa ■< had not' been' arrived' at properly, orthat < the association acted contrary to the pnn- .. eiples of natural' justice.: ' He concluded v;. ■ that Hanria had purposely avoided giving. • explanations to the committee before dis- ■ qualification., 'There : was ,no, reason to . think-the association',' had: not; acted bona , !fide,.and judgmient)would be, given for;t^e ' defendant; association ;:with': costs.',; •, , .. •: ; . Auckland, Fobrnary 23.' - : "lii the' Supreme' Court this afternoon '. : in the 'matter' of'the appeal' by, ThomM-r Rowe George frohi the determination ot , the Registration Bowd under the New. ,Zealand Society: of: Accountants Act 1908, by which ; appellant was. refused. regis-'. tration/'Mr.;. Justice.- Edwardsi '.held sthat; ! the Court had ho power: to .interfere .with _. the finding:;of::the: ,board.;.;/His. Honour - ?. .'said, however; Hhat,, [from "the,.evidence, before "him', it appeared ..that, appellant had been hardly .dealt v with, but the ; ;board was,an. association.of eMera wtom v appellant was bound -to satisfy his efficiency."' : 'lii this-her had apparentlv ; failed; - and, probably his only- chance- pi was' in a''reasonable; amendment .',oi ; f the_'aot.

Palmerston.:North l :l , cbrnary>23. . * '>'■ At the' Supreme Court to-day th© case of "W, E. L. . Banks r.v... the -Cheltenham Co-operative Dairy Company"ws hM*d.-. in the'forenoon. ' Plaintiff claimed a refund of £250 find, thecanoelling of'.a pro-" missory: note of that value, payment;bp-:-, 'ine.' alleged to. have'. been made ; . . under, ilr; of. FeMmg;.:tip-, , 'pear^for'defendant,,andMr.■ Herdinaaj •; of' Wellington, 'for "plaintiff. 7 r •The "claim I :'was that plaintiff-.was a : ■farmer,' whose brother-in-law, as secretary;iof the .Cheltenham Company; • embezzled over £500. After: this was discovered-by an "auditor," Mr. Sandilahds, ..acting- M. 4: 'legal'adviser.vof ithe'-'company,,.suggested ;to - ! Mrs»-Banks 5 and : : ber. sonithat, . to , t avoid-criminal proceedings against-Boss, ,j 'thsy,.should-, pay7.£2so,- and ; a;promissory note: for:'Jß2so. ': .The,; payment !waa - ( 'made, - and' the, nbtes'.-hahded, over to .:the :: lawyer'. on '-.the,: -understanding ..that no ;. criminal Vprowedings,:would, /be,..'men;against Ross,",but,;subh; I 'proceedings .were.-,, taken,- hence, the'ipresent- claim. , The jury found that.it was agreed.be;,-. tween the: parties' that the; con'sideration,' for the ■ payment of ; -.£2501-and, the. giving ■' ■of ' the; proriiiss'ory n'ote' r pf' '5250;; was ' in; order :tliat. there,"should':be "no Bloseeja-'/. tion'.'of Ross by.' the "company s. that. the' > company did take'aii.unfair; advantage of . the plaintiff' iiV'.the.'course taken, through v :Mr. Sandilands 'by ■;leading him-; to -. lieve-.that: if the £500;:. was. paidothers was:no ;reason why a prpseciitiqn.should followand,' that . therefore,.it ytis ,r!»id -■ on that .under.itandins. . . • rV,;,:; On the- application of ;Mr. Graham, jhis, ; Honour reserved'.(l). the. ; ripht a move for a nonsuit-on all poiuts; ; (2) ,; new trial; or (8) for •bothr.pavties.Y to , -move for . judgment, , whicheyer. tnpy,. con-! sidered, they we're-most entitled■ i- In'.the case'of'R.,B. Robfrteon, v.,Bar-... mud arid: Abraham, a', claim of;JKOV dain- ■ ■ ;agf : 3'for alleged .negligent valuation' of hotel-:property : : by,;an,'cmploy«.'of.;;de-:.: fondants'; plaintiff; Vas with ■cbsts, on the R-round that there was no evidenoo, to^'show'-^hat, -•the,'-!cmp%«e,;'... Levieni' was I "authorised-; by or -» that it was f a..valuation. !

Those feeling enervated .by .the summer, boat should benefit by the tonio; prbpared iby ''Mi;/ 0. .'-A-. F1 jtcber, ,*. ph& r * macist, Iminbton' Quay. Sfee advertising columns. '' : v\ : \'.y. ; '.Messrs. T. Kennedy : Macdcnald, Limited, sell 'by auction on- Wednesday,; March 23, at 2.15 o'clock, by order: of .'the .'Resfistrar of the Supremfc Court,' c.' block .of land,' containing over-.half '-an acre; beim: Se.ctioii -5, Block -15; Polhill" Gully- Native re*, serve, ' having a.; frontage, of•„ 240 ft. .6in. tOi Terrace, depth of.from B?ft 6m. toi6<ft. '6in. Full {details':arc: riven. in ail advertisement, inserted, is this . :Messrs. •. Craig : and' Company,33 Manners ' Str6et,'.announce 'the' - commencement 'of their' 7 animal• sale of-'China, -class.and carthenwaro-rto-day.'. Tho. firm iadvertise, ~oa : all-itheir,- stock;, ,All. orders., will be .delivered - by ' .their,, motor delivery . ..