SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1376, 29 February 1912, Page 8

SUPREME COURT.

ALLEGED FEAUD. ' t His Honour Mr. Justice Sim fat yesterday t.o hear the balance of the evidence in the ehse F. H. Pitcher, M. A. Pitcher, M. W. Andaj'son, nnd A. Gray, and W. C. A.' Dimock,*V. ,T. M'Tavish, and W. E. Redstone. Tho action was for a rescission of the partnership contract under which a land syndicate in which the plaintiffs and defendant Kedstono were partners, on the ground.that Bedstone, while acting with the other defendants as promoters of the syndicate, and as u shareholder in it, had, it was alleged, concealed the fact that ho whs interested, :is an owner, in the sale of the land. It was not denied for tho defendants that Bedstone was-an owner of the land, but it was alleged that this fact was well known to the other m«mbors of the syndicate. C. B: Morison appeared for the plaintiffs, and Sir John Findlay, with him Mr. F. E. Ward, for the defendants. Hearing of argument of counsel was adjourned to some date to be fixed later.

AN APPEAL. WHO CAUSED THE OBSTRUCTION? All appeal from the decision of three Justices of the Peaco in a caso heard at Ixjwer Hutt was heard by his Honour tho Chief Justice, Sir Eobert Stout. Tho Justices who determined the case in the first instance were Messrs, G. A. Chapman, John Cudby, and John Wilkins. It appears that the appellant, William Brown; driving a motor-car on Mclling Bridge over the Hutt Eiver, met a cart driven by 0110 Ell. There was not room for the vehicles to pass, and a dispute arose as to who had priority by getting on to the bridge the sooner. Neither would give way, nnd Brown called up a policeman, claiming that Ell, and not lie, had caused the obstruction. The policeman persuaded one or other to make • way, and laid an information against each of them for having wilfully and unlawfully obstructed a public place. Both defendants were convicted. Brown was fine 10s., with costs 135., and he apnealed against the decision on tho ground that it was erroneous in point of law.

j['r, C.E. Dix appeared for the appellant, and Mr. H. H. Ostler for tho Crown. Affidavits were filed with intent to show that fne facts had not been correctly stated for tho purposes of the appeal. Mr. Dix proceeded to refer to these affidavits, and to traverse in some degree the findings of fact made by their Worships at the trial, but his Honour said he must accept their findings, even though they were wrong. Neither could he refer the case back to have tho facts re-stated. ' ~.,,, The appeal was dismissed, but no costs were allowed.