DISTRICT COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4034, 31 January 1876, Page 2

DISTRICT COURT.

Monday, Januabt 31. (Before his Honor Judge Bathgate.) Be Mark Sayar.—Mr H. Smythies stated that iu this case Mark Sayar, a bankrupt, had filed a statement of facts in connection with his estate, applicant being appointed trustee. As this case came imd-.r the new Act, he (Mr Mnyth J es) bad to ask bis Honor whether by virtue of the Act the estate devolved upon him as trustee, and whether proceedings should be commenced in this or in the Supreme Court. Applicant argued at length upon the vagueness exiting as to whether under the new Actbankru .tcy p'-oce.dihgs must be initiated in a District or a Supreme Court.—His Honor said the difficulty that had presented itself to applicant appeared at first sight of impor tance. There was no doubt both Supreme and Di-trict Courts had joint jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and the question was whether District Courts were intended to be the Courts in which proceedings were to be taken in the first instance. It was difficult to shut out the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court altogether, but as the matter had now been brought before the profession they might wish to initiate pioceedi> gs in this Court, and arrangements would be made accordingly. He w*s not able to give applicant any advice, as that would be goin ; a s ep beyond the province of the Court. JHe would take time to consider the matter.—Mr Smythies said be merely wished to know if the estate devolved upon mm or not; it was perfectly immaterial to him how the matter was decided, so long as he knew that, and also knew in which Court initiatory steps were to betaken.

' George Stewart v, David and George Proudfoot. Claim, L7O 16s. 3d., 'Mr Haggitt appeared fox defendants, and as there was no appearance of or for plaintiff, asked that toe case be dismissed. His Honor nonsuited plaintiff, with costs for defendants. John M'Cabe v. Andrew M'Cabe.—Claim, Jilss. In this case Mr F. ,K Chapman’said tho parties had‘‘agreed to withdraw all 'procecjdings, with a view. to a . settlement bong codie to.—Hin Hohir adjourned the case fear a hwnth for thW purpose.

Louis Henry damages « * wrongfully polluting the pn plainttfiPa had in Great jCiV> stw3F«d fc^roagiHd-fe tt dant creating dilrersdffehsiveMd tiffs hboiw* was reudered orated ja value, and he andiis f&mily;«bfftted The parties toSakonixesided ; on Bectiomt tth nliint Hhegedthat tie pollution Tip* since February, 187JL—Mr Harris apWarw for p'aintiff; MrS£ < mt for def Tidant who ulesded tionlo, block 23, for eight or nine years. When he purchased the land there was no annoyance from dirty water. l«it in 1871 filthy water came through frvm defendant’s premises. Witness then filled np Us section, it being lower than defendant’s, hj March ofthat close to witness’s prop erty, causing a great nuisance through foul smells, and .•Tendering witness's house unhealthy,. Witness then ar* ranged for defendant to co* meet with of drainage, bu¥later oh cflief► hdart undermined the bank between the properties by boring boles with an iron rod, thpimgh which offensive matter flowed on to witnesses ground. stopped up theseholes, but. as fast m heiflid so defendant made fresh ones.' - Then letters passed between the parties, a nd dißput<:e aro#L ending with witness thi eatevdng to takelegal proceedings. After witness’s ekamihktidh Was concluded the case was adjourned pendihftfio arrival of another witness. .

Thomas By an v.\ Martba : Claim, L2OO, damages for breaoh of agn-ement to lease the biiLard-room of tin Royal George Hotel for five sears, from April' 1, 1876, at L 3 per week. Mr A dridgeV appeared! IT.r plaintiff; Mr Stout for defond-a't. The case was proceeding a» we went to preiis. ‘f $