SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 2852, 10 April 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

Yesterday. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman, and a jury of twelve.) breach or promise ok marriage. Elizabeth Feeney v. John Richardson. —This was an action brought by the plaintiff for compensation for defendant having failed to fulfil his promise to marry her within a reasonable time. The damages were laid at L 250. Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff. The case was undefended. From the declaration it appeared that on the 14th June of last year the plaintiff sned the defendant by her solicitor, Air MTveay, when he promised to marry her within a reasonable time. Sufficient time had elapsed, and as he refused to marry her, she claimed to recover L 250 as compensation. The defendant is a master mariner, according to the evidence of Mr M ‘Keay, receiving Ll2 per month, and the plaintiff is an immigrant from Ireland, twenty-seven years of age, who since her arrival in Otago has been in domestic service, and bears a very respectable character. The defendant’s letters were read, some of them dating as far back as March 3rd, 1569. They are very uninteresting, and were merely useful as evidence to show that the defendant had agreed to marry the plaintiff, and that up to the 25'h August, 1871, he had not abandoned the intention. The evidence of Mary Kerrigan and Hannah Francis were taken in confirmation of the promise to marry. His Honor addressed the jury, and pointed out that, as the defendant had not put in any answer to the charge, their du t.y was merely to assess damages, in doing which they must be guided by the common rule of law to give them in proportion to the circumstances of the defendant, so as not to be absolutely ruinous. The plaintiff had been gaining her living by honest labor, was very respectable, and was entitled to consideration at the hands of the jury. After consulting together a short time, the jury returned a verdict—damages, LSO. IN BANCO. This Day. (Before Mr Justice Chapman ) GARDINER V. SI DEV AND JANE COLLINS. This was an appeal against judgment given in the Resident Magistrate’s Court, respecting appellants’ interest in certain leasehold property which had become liable thiough plaintiff’s bankruptcy. It was urged that Jane Collins was not liable to the loss of her interest in said land through the bankruptcy of Gardiner beyond the rent then due, and that the section of the Act m der which judgment was given applied only to the extent of the bankrupt’s interest. Appeal granted without costs. M‘LEAN V. MACANDREW. Mr Macassey applied for a motion to dissolve an injunction, and to stay proceedings under an order made on the 12th of January, whereby the title to two pastoral runs had be.u extinguished. Since the above order was made, changes had taken place in the constitution of the Waste Land Board, which considerably altered the circumstances under which the injunction was granted ; and he now claimed a rule nisi to set aside the above order. His Honor granted a rule nisi, on the understanding that an opportunity should be afforded for the parties to come to some arrangement. PROUDKOOT V. BANBURY. Mr Shapcot applied for a rule nisi against Mr Strode and Proud foot, for permission to show cause why further proceedings should not be taken in the above case. He held the Magistrate had no jurisdiction. Judgment had been given against defendant for damaging ascertain portion of.the fences on the line of the Port Chalmers Railway by throwing laud on the roadway and counsel urged that defendant was acting on behalf of the Road Board. His Honor said the affidavits filed by the defendants failed to show how the question of jurisdiction came before the Court, and he therefore could not give a rule upon them. The defendants, however, could apply again upon more explicit affidavits, showing how the question of jurisdiction and title was involved. JENOUR V. THE CORPORATION OK CROMWELL. In this case the affidavit of plaintiff set forth that the corporation made certain claims against him which he agreed to submit to arbitration. An award was made by the arbitrators the second day after the time fixed by the deed, and for an account greater than that claimed. Jenonr gave notice of his intention to dispute the award, but an action was {brought in the Resident Magistrate s Court and payment obtained for the amount. Mr Howorth, on behalf of Jenour, now moved for a writ of Prohibition on the ground that the action referred to was brought prematurely ; that the agreement and award ivere insufficiently stamped, and that the award was not made in time. His Honor granted a rule nisi, returnable in ten days after service. DRIVER V. LEARMOUTH. lu this c ise Mr Macassey obtained a rule Qisi to set aside or vary a rule of the 20th

March, 1872, obtained in demurer in this action. BARTON V. “ OTAGO DAILY TIMES.” Mr Macassey, for the plaintiff, moved that the rule n : si be made absolute, obtained on the 27th ult., calling upon the Directoors and secretary of the Otnijo Daily Times and jyit/iess Company (Limited) to answer certain interrogatories. Mr Barton on behalf of the defendants appeared to oppose. The case was argued at some I ngfcfi, and it had not concluded at the rising of the Court.