SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3502, 14 May 1874, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Thursday, May 14. (Before Hia Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) The Otago and Southland Investment ~ 0" y'" . Burns.—-Hia Honor delivered a lengthy judgment in this matter, which was a rule calling on the plaintiffs to shew cause r ?P^ ca^ ona to a judgment recorded m the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Dunedin, shou d not be struck out, and the order of October 10, allowing such replication to be pleaded, should not be rescinded. The defondant s rule was made absolute, Mr Smith obtained leave to appeal, . White t. M‘Kk' lar. — Mr Barton moved to discontinue all action and proceedings between the parties on the following terms : Defendants to .pay to the plaintiffs L 5,000 and all costs by the plaintiffs in all actions * iooe° Coß ™^ s from their commencement in 1866 to the present time, and as between attorney and client; all coats to be incurred in respect of those proceedings, and upon signing all documents necessary to obtain a lease of their run; the plaintiffs to be at liberty to take all necessary orders from the Uourt for the purposes of taxation. Mr Macassey, for the defendants, agreed to the order, which was made accordingly, , Re »», re the Leases and Sales Act, 1865. Motion for leave to sell settled estates. Mr Stout obtained an order The Production of Telegrams— Mr Smith who appeared along with Mr Stout to move that the order made by his Honor on March 13, to enable the plaintiff in Macassey v. Bell to inspect certain telegrams, should be rescinded, should be made absolute, intimated that he had learnt from Mr Haggitt that no cause would be shown—His Honor : I have looked over the case and convinced myself that the order was granted by me tmprovide. 1 ought nob to have granted it on an ex parte motion; and the order itself is too large. I have no hesitation in making the rule absolute.—Mr Smith supposed the rule would be made absolute with costs: but Mr Haggitt pointed out that the rulo did not ask for coats —His Honor lam not disposed to grant costs, simply because the fault was mine. The order was granted hastily—.ln the hurry of business, and I ought to have considered it more carefully. Macassey v. Bell— Mr Haggitt intimated that he had to apply for a rule nisi ror a new trial of this case, and said it might perhaps be necessary to move the Court of Appeal, and they did not want to lose any time—His Honor :Itis a rather complicated case, and there is six days’ evidence to go over. I would rather not take it now. I *°. Wellington on Saturday, and the Chief Justice has been writing and telegraphing to me, urging me to come—Mr Haggitt: It will not take more than an hour and a-half—His Honor; If there is any difficulty it may take more than an hour and a-half—Mr Haggitt: I don’t think your Honor will have much difficulty in granting a rule nm, which is all we want now—Hia Honor: If you press it, I will hear you to-day, but I am very much pressed for time. I have been up lately early and late—Mr Haggitti; I was up all night, trying to get the application ready for this morning. His Honor said he was getting too old for that. During the course of the trial he had frequently to go over the evidence, so that he had not had a moment to spate. Indeed, he had great difficulty In getting ready the judgment m the Otago Investment Company v Burns—Mr Haggitt meant to say that, in the event of his Honor refusing the rule nisi, the matter would be taken to the Appeal oourt, and, to avoid the possibility of the case going over for six months, he wanted to move now—His Honor: I don’t think I shall have time to consider the case. All libels are peculiar, and the question of libel or no libel is so entirely within the juriadiction of the jury that I should have great difficulty, supposing you were to move in an hour and a-half. 1 don’t think it right to press me m this way, though I know it is very inconvenient for the matter to stand over—Mr Haggitt: Some of the points that arise are questions of pleading.—His Honor: Idon t think anything will be gained by pressing it now, because I should probably take time to consider the matter. I anticipated to some extent, in a serious case like this, a motion of this kind, and wheneyer my mind has not been otherwise occupmd I hare looked over the evidence and so forth, but I cannot say lam prepared. The matter then dropped, it being understood that. Mr Haggitt would renew his application to-morrow. Larnach v. Ellis.— Application for a mandamus compelling the Receiver of Land revenue at Invercargill to grant to Mr Larnach a certificate for land purchased by him. Hd Mr Barton s application the rule was made absolute.

Forrester v. Darling.-Mr Stewart mentioned this ease tp save time.