SUPREME COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4269, 1 November 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

IK BANCO.

Wednesday, November 1. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams.)

Re Quick. —In this case Mr Howorth applied for order vesting certain lands owned by the mortgagee in the mortgagor, the former having dud. He also asked for the appointment of trustees.

The application was granted. Mack<jy v. The National Bank.— Mr Stewart in this case moved’for a rule nisi for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection by the learned Judge, and also that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. He explained that the motion was a formal one, as his Honor had already considered the matter on the occasion of the trial and delivered judgment. Such being the case, he would now most likely refuse both the motion and also leave to appeal. This was what the plaintiff wanted, as the case could then be brought before the Court of Appeal at its present sitting. His Honor remarked that he would probably refuse the inle, but not leave to appeal. Mr Stewart thought that if bis Honor refused the rule he should also refuse leave to appeal. His Honor said that the rules of the Supreme Court provided that in cases wheie a bill of exceptions had been tendered it should be waived before an application was made for a new trial.

Mr Stewart pointed out that the bill of exceptions referred to a point of law only. One branch of the rule was that the verdict was against the weight of evidence j therefore, on this ground alone, the application might be made and refused, without reference to the hill of exceptions. Ho stated that the sole object of the plaintiff was to have the matter disposed of as expeditiously as possible. It would involve considerable expense were the matter argued before his Honor, and probably the bank would consent to its being taken before the Court of Appeal direct. ->i r Stout intimated that the V*T\lr would not consent to such a course, Mr Stewart then said that he wxnAd withdraw thu application foV a rule rtfty kb*

iWiU Mi hit House to appoint a day foe arguingths bill of axom *** H’t Honor said th&iai would hoar mi> mint in the matter on the first baneo day after the ensuing sitting! of the Court of Appeal. Clark v. Bigg Bros.—ln this ease, which was tried at the last sittings of the Supreme Court, Mr Stout moved for a new trial, on the grounds of misdirection and that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. - Rule granted. Regina v. Murdoch. —Motion for a rule niai to qnash a conviction for breach of a Licensing Ordinance. Mr Stewart in support of the motion, and Mr Stout to shew cause.—Adjourned till after the sitting of the Court of Appeal. -- J&nvv.3l^avin*—This was a demurrer, hy the plaintiff to the defendant’s rejoinder 7 —His Honor, in delivering judgment, maintained the demurrer.

' 0F NBW CaLDBB.— & this case the defendant had demurred to the plaintiff’s declaration. The matter was argued some time ago.—The demurrer wai overruled, but the defendant to b« at. liberty to set off certain costs. The Court then adjourned. Regina v. Borrows.— Mr Stewavt’moved for a writ of .prohibition with a. view of cancelling the proceedings in this case, in which Borrows was convicted of indecent exposure and afterwards admitted to the Lunatic Asylum. Mr Stout appeared to show cause. The case was adjourned.