SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4210, 24 August 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO.

Thursday, August 24. (Before His Henor Mr Justice Williams.)

Bank or'Nsw Zealand v, Shark- In this case the Judge had granted an order giving defendant leave to plead to .three bills on paying the amount of a fourth bill into Court. Mr Dennistoun now asked that the order be rescinded.

Counsel argued that defendant should not be prejudiced in regard to his right to defend the claim for the first three: billn i to which he had a good defence, by being called upon to pay the amount of the fourth bill or finding security for it. Counsel contended that they were justified in assuming that on the three bills the case was brought into the scope of the Act and they had a right to go to a jury on them. This right ought not to be made contingent upon finding money or security for another cause of action. His Honor reserved his decision.

Ludjsman v. Barnett.—Case on appeal from the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Queenstown. The appellant (Ludeman) had been fined Is and costa (14 la) for preventing the informant from driving cattle along a certain road near Lake Wakatip. Mr Finn appeared for the appellant. Counsel argued that no evidence had been adduced to shew that appellant had been guilty of the ofteaee for which he had been fined.

His Honor thought appellant was entitled to judgment and accordingly quashed the conviction, with costs as against the informant.

Kjno v. M‘Gavin.—Argument of demurrer. Mr Stewart appeared in support of the demurrer j Mr Haggitt on the other side.

Mr Stewart said the facts of tie ease wer* that plaintiff had purchased the interest of one of the parties to a firm in a certain estate, although not in his own n&me but in thoge of other parties. •he question at Issue was not only wh ether plaintiff was the proper

party