SUPREME COURT.
IN BANCO. Wednesday, August 12. (Before His Honor Justice Chapman.) CASES POSTPONED. The arguments on the ruleswisi for attachment in the cases of Macassey v the ‘Guardian’ Company, and Macassey v. Bell, with several other cases, were postponed, in conpf the detention of MrHaggittin Wellington, an 4 the summons of the WardChapman Committee ffljf Mr Macassey’s attenda ce. Dunedin Waterworks Company (Anellants) v. Halfway Bush Road BoArp (Respondent#).—His Honor delivered Judgment in this case, which was a cjaim for LIOO for rates due. The claim ; wa'h for a higher amount, but the excess above LIOO had been abandoned in order to bring the case within the jurisdiction of the Resident Magistrate’s Court. The action for the recovery of the rate was brought on the 10th October, 1873, and the question was the 12th action of the ct, which provided that the “badness” of the rate should not avail to prevent recovery of assessment under the Act. The defence was that the Act did not provide for any rptrp-active operation. Admitting that, he could not see that any retro-active operation had beep attempted, inasmuch as the rate was struck gdter tfra Apt became operative —Appeal dismiss d, with costs, Hitching v. M'Cahthy.— ln this case, which was on demurrer for non-performance of a verbal agreement, his Honor decided there was u© ground for specific performance, that the demurrer must be allowed, and that thex-efore judgment must be for the defendant. Mr Smith obtained leave to appeal. Healey v. Heenan.— A rule nisi to arrest judgment or for amw trial. This was an argument on an appeal from the decision of a jury bn a slander of title The parties to the suit bad’ been partners in a brick manufactory, and it was held by Counsel that, in cousequen e of slandi-r by the defendant, plaintiff had been obliged tosell bricks under the ma ket value.— His Honor thought the case had been properly left to a jury, that the evidence was sufficient to support their verdict, and that there w as no ground for a new trial. Macassey y. Bell. — ln this ease, on the application of Mr James Smith, counsel for the defendant, on an additional affidavit, a rple jp.sj, was grauted, calling upon Mr Macassey to show cause why he should not answer for contempt of Coqrt jn publishing, a letter aq.d telegrams connected with a case' in which application for a ne\y trial was' before the Court.
Regina v. Parker.—A ru’e nisi was grunted to show came why a conviction filed against John Macdonald, store-keeper, Palmerston, for an offence against the Licensing Ordinance, should not be grants 1. M'Grath (appellant) v. Henderson and ANOTHER (respondents).—This was an appeal from the Magistrate’s Court, Oamaru. Mr tSmith for the appellant, Mr Stout for the respondents. The case arose out of the death of a horse.—Judgment reserved.
Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD18740813.2.8
Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka
Evening Star, Issue 3580, 13 August 1874, Page 2
Word count
Tapeke kupu
478SUPREME COURT. Evening Star, Issue 3580, 13 August 1874, Page 2
Using this item
Te whakamahi i tēnei tūemi
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.