SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3152, 27 March 1873, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY. Tins Day. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman ) In Be William Thomas Haynes. —The insolvent was abdicated bankrupt, and the first meeting of creditors was fixed for the 4th proximo. Mr. Stout appeared for the bankrupt.

IN BANCO. Thk Otaoo and Southland Investment Comuanx (Limited) v. Butins.— Argument on rule nisi to deliver interrogatories and to rescind an order.—Mr. Barton moved that the rule be made absolute.— His Honor asked who intended showing cause. Mr, Barton replied that this was Mr. Smith’s case, but that gentleman was out of the country. —His Honor ; But his firm his here.—Mr. Barton then said that, subject to the approval of the Court, he would suggest that the case be postponed until Monday next. His clients, however, had received notice of .a new trial, and therefore he would ask his Honor to stay proceedings on terms until after the interrogatories had been answered. There was no objection made to this, and the matter was consequently adjourned until Monday. Caldek v. Duff.— Motion for an injunction. Mr Barton stated that he had only received the brief from Mr Macassey yesterday, and was not yet prepared to go on with the case. Ho would therefore ask that the motion be postponed until Monday. Postponed accordingly. Scrimcour (appellant) v, MTCellar (respondent).—This was a case stated by Mr Warden P3 ke for the opinion of the Court. At the request of Mr Chapman it was placed at the bottom of the list.

Gallon y. Cameron. —Argument of rule nisi in arrest of judgment. The case was tried on the 12th of October last, when judgment was given against defendant. The rule was granted on the 18th of the following December. Mr Stout moved that the rule be discharged on the grounds that the declaration on which it was obtained was bad in substance, and that the defendant at the time of the action was not entitled to occupy the ground then in dispute. Mr Co A supported the rule, on the grounds that the declaration was good, inasmuch as the defendants were entitled to occupy the ground for twenty-one days after the date of former action, and that a nonsuit must be entered, because the terms were not vested in the plaintiff when the action was commenced. His Honor reserved his decision.