SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3956, 29 October 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Thursday, October 28. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Livingston v. M'Master and Others.— Mr E. Cook moved for the appointment of Kobert Murray as guardian for the infant of defendant, Archibald Livingston, i'he appointment was made. Flexman v. the Standard Fire and Marine Insurance Company.— Mr Haggitt moved for a rule nisi for leave to enter a verdict for defendants, in pursuance of leave reserved at trial. Kule nisi granted. In re Merchant Shipping Act.— Mr Haggitt moved that an order be made for the payment of costs of the Governor, of survey, and of the survey anew to be made in the matter of the Don Juan. The order was granted. Cornish v. Brighton.— Mr Barton with him Mr Stout for appellant; Mr Haggitt for respondent. Case on appeal from the Resident Magistrates Court, Roxburgh. The appeal was as to whether rent was payable by the applicant to the respondent for a certain hotel. The building was erected in| a public street, and had been assigned to the respondent by deed. The case was drawn under two deeds of memoranda after counsel pro and con had been fully heard. Judgment was reserved. Jenkins v. Jenkins and Another.— This was a motion for decree: Mr Mouat appeared for appellant, Messrs Smith and Stout for defendant.—Decree refused. Issue of fraud to be tried. Costs were allowed to respondents. Marsh v. Cglclough.— Case on appeal from the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Cromwell. Mr Smith appeared for appellant, Mr Stout for respondent.—The question was as to liability for rates at Cromwell, and whether proper notice was given by the Town Clerk as to the rate to be levied. The appeal was dismissed with coats.

Friday, October 29. Shotover Terrace Gold Hiking Company, Appellants, v. William Armstrong, Respondent. —Case on appeal from the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Dunedin. Mr Smith appeared for appellants, and Mr Stout for defendant. Appellants had sued in the lower Court for LSI 9s Id, due on two calls on 300 shares. It was then proved that at the time the call was made respondent appeared on the register as the holder of 300 shares, and that the said calls were duly made, bat no part of the money was paid. After the cate for the plaintiffs was closed defendant’s counsel applied for a nonsuit. The Magistrate (Mr Mansford, R.M.) held that as the plaintiffs had no power under the Mining Company’s Act to sue for calls after the expiration of fourteen days from the time the calls were made payable he must nonsuit them. The question now cited for his Honor to determine was whether a call made under the Mining Company’s Act can be sued for after the expiration of fourteen days from the call being made. Mr Smith having been heard in support of the appeal, Mr Stout contended that a company could not sue for more than one call at a time ; and also the case should have been brought by the manager in the name of the company.—Mr Smith having pointed out that this point had not been touched on in the inferior Court, the appeal was so altered as to make it appear that the company a manager had sued in the first place. —His Honor reserved judgment.