SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3466, 1 April 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY.

Wednesday, April 1. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) White and Another v. M‘Kbll\r and Another. in this c.ise (previously argued), a rule nisi calling on plaintiffs to show cause ) why a rule obtained by them should not be amended by striking out of the first paragraph the words, “or on the sixth count of the same,” and oat of the fifth and eighth paragraphs the words, “ leave to move accordingly was reserved at the said trial,” his Honor gave judgment to the following effect:—The argument turned principally upon this: that although leave may have been reserved verbally at the trial, no such reservation appeared on his Honor’s notes, and that the Court will not—in the face of the words used by the learned Judges in Regina v. Virrier, 12, Adolphus and Wilis, 317—act on the recollection of the Judge. Aft;r commenting on the various cases quoted by counsel in the arguments as bearing on the question, his Honor said that, taking two circumstances together—his recollection, and the special nature of the contingent proceedings of the jury as to the damages—he thought no doubt could remain that this rule ought to be discharged. As to the first clause of he rule, that clearly was a question which could be raised before the full Court. It forma part of the argument on the plaintiffs’ rule. The present rule would therefore be discharged, with costs; but with liberty to raise the objections before the full Court in arguing the principal rule—in the same manner as the same might be raised in the Court in Banco here. Leave to appeal was granted to the defendants. Otaoo and Southland Investment Co. v. Burns —His Honor stated that he would give his decision in this case to-morrow. On account of the indisposition of Mr James, Smith, the following cases, appointed for to-day’a Bauch sitting of the Supreme Court, were held over:—Larnach v. Ellis, argument of rule nisi for writ ot mandamus ; and argumenc of rule nisi for trial of issue re Lee Mow Tie. Brooklet, (appellant) v. Burt and another (respondents).—This was an appual from a judgment given against appellant in the Resident Magistrate's ourt, Dunedin, some months ago. Mr F. Chapman appeared for appellant, Mr Stewart for respondents.— Ths original case was a claim of L 37 6a lid on the part of A. and T. Burt against. Charles Brockley, of Greymouth, for certain galvanised iron suplied to order. The latter objected to the claim, on the grounds that the iron sent was not of the gauges ordered, and that it was more damaged than was stated by the plaintiffs (respondents in this case). The Resident Magistrate, however, decided that the iron was not properly gauged, to ascertain its width, at Greymouth, but allowed that it was damaged to a greater extent than Brockley understood to be the case before receiving it. In giving judgment, therefore, he (the Resident Magistrate) deducted the sum of L 5 for the difference in damage, awardiug L 32 11s lid to A, and T, Burt. Mr Chapman now stated that the point on which the case turned was whether the appellant had given security, in giving notice of appeal, within the three days from the date of the decision of the Resident Magistrate which was laid down by the Act. The learned couusel contended that appellant had done so, as he had given notice to “a magistrate or justice of 1 the peace ” at Greymouth within that time ; and also that the magistrate who tried the case had given a decision arrived at under a total misapprehension of the law. [Left sitting.]