SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 727, 18 October 1876, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Tuesday, October 17. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston). His Honor held a banco and Chamber sittings at 11 a.m. yestnday. GEE V MOORE. In this case, which was an argument on demurrer to the third and sixth plea of defendant’s declaration, his Honor gave judgment for plaintiff. GILMOUR V BRUCE This was also a demurrer, and his Honor gave judgment for plaintiff. RE GEORGE LILLY MELLISH, R.M. In this case a rule nisi had been obtained, calling on the Resident Magistrate at Christchurch to show cause why a mandamus should not issue to compelj him to grant a summons. The facts of the case upon which the application was made raises a very important point of law. At last criminal session of the Supreme Court one Michael Galvin was arraigned for burglary with violence on the premises of one Henry Cutler at Riccarton. At the time of the burglary the prosecutor had in the house a large sum of money which was taken. Subsequent!}-, on the prisoner being arrested, it was discovered that not only had he money in his possession, but also a certain sum in the bank. The prisoner was found guilty, and sentenced to twenty years’ penal servitude. At the time of the trial no apnlication was made to the learned Judge under section i of the Forfeiture Act for an order to cand over the money so found in prisoner’s possession to prosecutor. Ultimately, however, the prosecutor made application for a summons at the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch, and entered a plaint for damages against the prisoner for £IOO. The Resident Magistrate, conceiving that there was no way in which the prisoner could appear to answer to the plaint, declined to issue the summons ; whereupon the appellant Cutler, the plaintiff in the Court below, applied to the Supreme Court for a rule nisi calling on the magistrate to show cause why the mandamus should not issue compelling him to grant such summons. The rule nisi was made, returnable at this sitting. Dr Foster said that he had been informed that there had been a trustee appointed by the Governor in the estates under the Act.

He would, under these circumstances, not press for the mandamus. It would be better it his Honor would allow of the case standing over until next banco day. His Honor said that he would allow the matter to stand over as requested. Mr Loughnan, who appeared for the defendant, consented to this being done. Order—Matter to stand over till next banco day. SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. EE WILL OF THOMAS SISSONS, DECEASED, Mr Joynt applied for an order granting probate to Charles Sissons, as sole executor therein. His Honor granted the order. EE WILL OP EOBEBT ASHWOBTH, DECEASED. In this case, on the application of Mr Wynn Williams, his Honor made an order granting probate herein to Johanna Ashworth, as widow of deceased. BE WILL OP JOHN ROBINSON, DECEASED, Mr Thompson applied for an order issuing probate to Isaac Robinson, as one of the executors named. His Honor pointed out that the attesting clause was not in proper form. There was no affidavit that the witnesses signed in the presence of each other. No order. Matter stands over for rectification of affidavit. EE WILL OP JOHN GREEN, DECEASED. Mr George Harper applied in this case for issuing probate to Eliza Green, as sole executrix. His Honor made the order. EE ESTATE OP FREDERICK EICHAEDSON PULLBE. On the application of Mr Joynt, his Honor made an order issuing letters of administration to Mary Fuller, as widow. EE ESTATE OP WM. STEINGEE, On the application of Mr Garrick, his Honor made an order for declaration of dividend herein, after a fortnight’s notice. EE PETEE COLLINS TEMBY, AN INFANT. Mr Loughnan, for Mr Jameson, appeared to apply for a writ of habeas corpus for the production of said infant. Mr Slater appeared for the mother and father-in-law. His Honor made an order issuing the writ as prayed, to be made returnable in Chambers on Tuesday week. GUINNESS V REID. Mr George Harper appeared to show cause why the defendant’s fourth plea should not be struck out or amended, with costs, The plea contained an allegation that the article complained of was fair comment on the conduct of plaintiff as a member of the Provincial Council. It was quite open to plead this, as was shown by authorities. [Earl of Lucan v Smith and another, j After some argument, His Honor gave leave to amend the plea. BURKE V HILLS. This was a case of foreign attachment, under the Absent Debtors Act. Mr George Harper appeared for the plaintiff. Mr Garrick appeared for the garnishee, Mr J. W. White, solicitor, Timaru. After the examination of Mr White had been taken, the Court adjourned.