SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume VII, Issue 745, 8 November 1876, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Monday. November 6. (Before his Honor Mr J aslioe Johnston. His Honor sat in banco at II a.m. KEILEY Y BOLLESTON (SUPT). This was a return to a rule nisi, calling upon plaintiff to show cause why the verdict in this case should not be set aside. Mr Garrick said that Mr Joynt and himself had agreed to enlarge the rule for a time. His Honor asked Mr Garrick for whom he appeared, Mr Garrick said for Mr Rolleston. His Honor —As Superintendent. The declaration was expressly amended in order to bring in the Superintendent of the Province, Now, as the Abolition Act is in force, there is no such person as Superintendent, you have, therefore, no locus standi , Mr Garrick ; you cannot appear for a person who does not exist. Mr Joynt—The case, your Honor, passes over to the Queen. Mr Garrick—l (can, then, appear for the Queen. His Honor—l do not think you can, Mr Garrick, without some express authority. Mr Garrick—l have communicated with Mr Rolleston, who has instructed me. His Honor—As Superintendent J Mr Garrick—No your Honor, as the agent of the General Government in the District of Canterbury, and thus representing the Queen. His Honor—l don’t think that is sufficient to give you a locus standi in this Court, because I am now asked to hear a case in which one of the persons has no status here, because I am obliged judicially to be. aware that the Superintendent is politically dead. I will allow the matter to stand over until after the sittings of the Court of Appeal, without any prejudice to the points of law raised in the case. Order accordingly. Case stands over until after the sitting of the Court of Appeal. BE PBTBB COLLINS TBMBY, AN INFANT. In this case the custody of the child was claimed by the father and the mother, and it now came up for judgment upon the affidavits. His Honor said he was prepared to make an order under the Act, but it was a matter which would require consideration and thought, as the responsibility, of seeing that the petitioner was in a position to keep the child and maintain it properly, was cast on the Court. The order would be that the child be delivered to the mother, the father to have power to apply at Chambers for any rule or regulation enabling him to see the child,