SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4095, 11 April 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Tuesday, April 11. (Before Mr Justice Williams and a Special Jury.)

JXKZBTS V. Jsmuvs AKS MITCHtSOW.—In thin nn+fco I 5l Ho « or delivered hie decision on the question raised by Mr Stout, as to whether there was case to go to the jury, ns follows • The issue is—was the order obtained frnudu lently and by means of false representations P The issue is framed for the purpose, if it be proved to the affirmative ofservingns the ground for a decree to s«t aside the order. The ground therefore must bofmid of such a character as if found would ins tify the Court to setting aside the order? I win assume that the Court will set aside the ortS n L can .,» b , e Bhown that was obtSf by the wilful misrepresentation of Tllii fore iMttST 1 t ‘ 1110 present Question there' f^Tw«, be ‘~ ls 411618 “Y evidence to go to the jury that there was such a wilful misrepraentetion hfifnrA rvfo m on ? iJFi 18 . evidence of what took place magistrate is contained to the cemplatot of Mrs Jenkina and in her answer to the interro«L. The complaint alleges the fact of desertion 5* tbe *** Now the word » desert” to life Mm ried Women's Property Protection Act reived J judicial interpretation that any person noUWer using the word would it in ite nary sense, and would not be toipracticaMe° fraud in so doing, unless it conld be shown +w was aware of the exact legal imLiSJOTi." 1 "* A 8 She alleges to the complaint thathe? sertedher. Inher answer she says the magistrate that her husband had and that she had had to earn WnwSfSii) 1 since 1868, and also that eh« had h wM coming to Queenstown. What Mldeime is tW oircmai stances, f^n BM»pl1on is agtdnat faud. Where an 864 a s l^ 4 i 8 Judgment of an inferior Court, ou the ground of fraud, and the fraud aUegedfi

that th« lodgment waa obtained % meeaswAW teatimon/gtven by one of, the parties, there is no doubt that .there should WJWB» farther evidence than the mere confcOting whs Of the other party to subffiitto the jufy. There i* strong analogy to an a. oosation for penMy, Im * am inclined te think that theeame principles apply. In the present case there is no exact evideu oeeltner g. ven by witnesses or derived from extrinsic cironm* stances. The qnestion as to whether the oroerwaa mode on insufficient materials is quite different from whether it was obtained fraudulently. His Honor dlrected'the|nry to And the issue in the negative, but gave Mr Barton leave to move that judgment be entered for the plaintiff in case this Court or a superior Court should consider the evidence sufficient to sustain the allegation of fraud.