SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume VI, Issue 208, 9 September 1901, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

[Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.] At the Supreme Court on Saturday, in the ease Oppenheimer v. F. J. Shelton, argument on the motion to set aside or refer back the award of the arbitrators, was continued, Mr DcLautour being for the applicant, and Mr Gray, with Mr Nolan, for the plaintiff'. It appeared that the arbitrators had each taken rough, but not complete notes of the evidence. Under the circumstances Mr DcLautour urged that the award be referred back, as it was the fault of the arbitrators that the material was not forthcoming necessary to found an appeal upon. He also submitted that they had erred in law in construing the documents. Mr Gray said that the application was not in the nature of an appeal, as suggested by Mr DcLautour. It w’as rather asking His Honor to set aside a jury’s verdict. Before his friend could move judgment would have to be entered upon the award, and even then the tribunal having been selected by the parties themselves the award could only he set aside under extraordinary circumstances. His Honor dismissed the motion, saying that there was no evidence before him which would justify him in setting aside the award. With regard to the arbitrators’ mistakes in law, it was the fault of the parties in not selecting persons with some legal knowledge, and it was only to bo expected that they would make mistakes, but on the case of Bell v. Finn, he must dismiss the summons. Ten guineas costs were allowed. Mr Gray then applied to fix the arbitrators’ fees. The arbitrators themselves had fixed the amount at £ls 15s each, which had been paid. His Hon jr considered that amount reasonable, and allowed it, with 10s extra for the award stamp. Then on Mr Gray’s application, judgment was entered up in favor of Messrs Oppenheimer and Co., confirming the award. Some discussion ensued as to what costs should be allowed, the arbitrators having allowed costs against Mr Shelton, but not fixing the amount. It was decided that the Registrar tax the costs, being guided by the scale, the Judge certifying for two extra days’ for counsel at £lO 10s per day. Some motions were hoard arising out of the case of Mere Roihi v. Assots Company, and two other eases against the Assets Company had been dismissed by His Honor as being an abuse of the process of the Court. Notice of appeal had been given in each case, and Mr DeLautour asked on behalf of Company that these notices should be siruck out as being lat'e, the point in dispute being whether the time ran from delivery of judgment in Auckland or of its being recorded in Gisborne. Mr E. A. Rees appeared on behalf of the native appellants, and urged the latter as the proper date, and this contention was upheld by His Honor. Mr Rees moved for the security fixed by the Registrar to be reduced, and that the time be extended for lodging security, proceeding being stayed in two of the actions till the third was tested. After argument, His Honor declined to reduce the amount of security, but extended the time for lodging security in two of the cases till December 7th. Mr DeLautour complained of tho series of litigation which had started fifteen years ago, which the company had to put up with. ■ There had been many eases, but the costs had only been paid in one. His Honor intimated that ho would take the application in Heni Kara v. Finn this morning. Mr Finn said that he would object that proper service had not been effected.