SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4215, 30 August 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO.

Wednesday, August 30. {Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

Mr Macassey mentioned the case of Tewsley and another v. Graham, which was a motion for decree. Having referred to the pleadings in the action he said that the question remaining to be decided was what relief were the plaintiffs entitled to receive, and further, which side shou’d pay the costs, or should a middle order be made leaving each side to pay its own costs. He would place the necessary materials before his Honor, so that he might give judgment on the case in Chambers, This was aoreed to.

In the case of White v. Cheltenham Mr Sinclair moved that the action be dismissed for want of presecution, as no steps had been taken by the other side since January 6. Thtre was no appearance on the other side, and the motion was granted. The rest of the sitting was occupied in arguing a demurrer to the declaration in the case of Hartley and others v. Hartley and another which was an action brought for the specific performance of an agreement, by the heiresses of the late John Hartley, of the North Taieri, against James Stewart Hartley, in respect to certain lands situated near Mosgiel. Mr Cook and Mr Haggitt appeared in support of the demurrer; and Mr Macassey and Mr Stewart for the declaration.