SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3847, 23 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. . Wednesday, June 23. (Before Mr Justice Johnston.) Maeaqhan v. Wbnkheim.—Mr Macassey moved for a rule nisi, calling on defendant to show cause why the Registrar should' not proceed to tax plaintiff’s costa of suit, or review his decision to refuse so to do. Counsel stated that the case was the well-known action brought by pb intiff to recover damages from defendant for alleged slander of the former in his business capacity, in which the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, -with damages assessed at one farthing. The rule was granted. , Habdino v. Campbell.—Mr Barton applied for a rule nisi for a new trial, but on Mr Macassey intimating that his client had left Dunedin, counsel for plaintiff moved that the rule be discharged with costs. Rule discharged. —Mr Barton also moved in the same case for a decree to be made in accordance with the plaintiff’s declaration and the finding of the jury, and that defendant deliver up a certain parcel of land in his possession.—Decree granted. Ritchie v. Peoudfoot. —Mr Macassey and Mr Haggitt demurred in this case, counsel stating that the action was a claim for breach of contract, though it was left open to be taken as a question of damages for trespass. Plaintiff claimed to recover from defendant, as constructor of the Dunedin and Port Chalmers Railway the value of a piece of land taken up for railway purposes. The demurrer waa to a prrtion of the count. —His Honor said that was something'new ; he had never heard of an objection to only a part of a count.—Mr Barton (who, with Mr Howorth, appeared for the other side) said he had intended bringing that before his Honor’s notice.—After some discussion, it was decided, on his Honor’s suggestion, that the action stand over for a few days, to allow of a special case being drawn up between the parties.

Monson v, Monson.— Mr Barton and Mr Macassey applied that a final decree might be made in accordance with plaintiff’s declaration, or, failing this, that his Honor would direct that a case be heard before a jury, Mr G. Cook appeared for W. H. Monson and family; Mr Howorth for J. Robert Monson; Mr J. Smith for other parties interested.—After Mr Barton had made his application, Mr Cook objected to the case going on, inasmuch as the suit (fop the administration of the estate of the late Mr Monson) was hot ready for hearing, and as it affected the interests of other parties.—Mr Barton said his motion affected the construe* tion_ of the will. The further hearing of the motion was iinally adjourned to Monday next.

Logan v. Otago Waste Land Boabd.— This was a case on appeal. Mr Barton, for defendants, applied under section 5 of the Waste Land Board Appeal Act of 1867, fiat if the parties to the action do not agree on a case to be stated, it be lawful for the Court to set a case. The Board had not filed affidavits, though the plaintiff had done so; but they were ready filing.—After some agrument with his J Conor, counsel withdrew his motion. It wasrintimated that the cases of M‘Lean v. Gill, and Douglas v. Johnson, had been settled by the parties concerned. [Left sitting.]