SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4209, 23 August 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, August 23. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.) Douglas v. Reid,— ln this case Mr G-. Cook applied for leave to appeal against his Honor’s decision delivered on Wednesday last. His Honor said counsel was not entitled to leave, it being a matter which vested ih the discretion of the Judge. Leave to appeal should be given only in cases involving important matters of law.

Mr Cook submitted that such was the case in this instance, there being a question as to whether a bill given under certain circumstances was a bul of a company or simply of the person giving it. Mr Haggitt submitted that the case was not one in which leave should be granted—the matter in dispute was one of fact rather than evidence. His Honor reserved his decision.

Regina v. Allen.—His Honor delivered judgment in this case, argument in which

was heard last week. Robert Allen, of called upon to show cause why an information in the nature of a writ of quo warranto should not be exhibited against him, to show by what authority he ci&iois to be a member of the Merton subdivision of the Waikouaiti Road Board, and also why he should not pay to John Granger, the relator, the costs of or incidental to this application, on the following grounds :—(1.) That the said Robert Allen was not . duly elected at the election in "virtue whereof he claims and holds his seat, inasmuch as Malcolm M ‘Lean, the person who seconded the nomination of Robert Allen, was not duly qualified to do so for the reason that he was not on the Voters’ Roll for the said Merton subdivision of the Waikouaiti Road District. (2.) That the said Robert Allen is not duly elected, inasmuch as he has never been declared elected by the Returning Officer, in pursuance of the provisions ofthe Otago Roads Ordinance of 1871. This morning his Honor made the rule absolute, and the wnt will consequently issue. Burke and another y. Drake.— This was a demurrer. Plaintiff had brought an action in the Supreme Court for the specific performance of a certain agreement to sell certain land, and the defendant now demurred to the declaration on seven grounds. Mr Haggitt appeared in support of the demurrer, Mr Macassey in support of the declaration. Mr Haggitt said three of the grounds of objection related to the joinder of the parties bringing the action; one was to the effect that the title was incomplete j and the others affirmed that the purchase money had not been tendered, nor had a conveyance been tendered before action brought. Counsel submitted that the declaration was defective. [Left sitting.]