SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1292, 10 May 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

♦ SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS AND BANCO. Thursday, May 9. [Hofore His Honor Mr Ju-tico Johnston.] His Honor sat in bunco and in Chambers at U ‘ wm ‘ IN CHAMBERS. RE W. A. GRAY, A LUNATIC. Mr Garrick applied for an order discharging the present committee, and appointing Hon. Ernest Gray in his stead. Mr Seager, superintendent of the lunat'C asylum, wa.s in att ndance, and stated that MiGray, the committee of the lunatic, had toldlum that he contemplated making arrangements for the reception of the lunatic in England. His Honor could not see why this should not have been placed upon the petition filed by the committee. Could Mr Seager say how much was expended upon the lunatic ? Mr Seager said he could not state from memory. The .Registrar said ho understood about 3os per week w r as expended on the lunatic. Mr Seager said that a trap and horse had been provided for the lunatic, and that an attendant had been placed specially at bis disposal. Mr Gray, the committee, had instructed him (Mr Seager) not to spare any expense. His Honor said after hearing Mr Seager s evidence ho would grunt Mr Garricks application. The Court was now informed of the state of the lunatic, which was not the case when the petition was presented. Order made. Mr Gray discharged as committee upon passing of accounts and report by the Registrar, and Hon Ernest Gray to bo then appointed as committee of the lunatic. romo v. ross. This was an application by Mr Garrick on the part of the plaintiff to settle issues and fix timo and place of trial. Mr Edwards, for the defendant, applied tor an adjournment, as he had not received any instruction from the Otago solicitors in the case. Mr Garrick should oppose Mr Edwards’ application. His Honor going to the Court of Appeal would practically put him back six months in bringing on the case. His Honor said that Mr Edwards, having been granted an indulgence of an adjournment previously, could not now ask for a still further adjournment, which would have the Gleet of postponing the trial for some time. The issues would now bo settled, and Mr Edwards could, if he thought proper, have the issues amended. The issues proposed by the plaintiff were read by Mr Garrick; and settled by big Honor a?

issues for the trial. The trial of the case was fixed for nest sitting of the Supreme Court at Timaru. Leave given to defendant to add issues to tho°e ao ttied by the 30th May. SS VSIJ.L OF W. A. CROCKER. TLsb was an application by Mr Garrick for probate to Mary Ann Klenk, as executrix, which had stood over from last Chamber sittings to enable the consent of the husband of the executrix to bo filed. This having been done, his Honor made the order granting probate as prayed. RE WILL OF THOMAS DEVEREUX JONES. Hr. Foster applied for an order granting probate to Martha Morrow Jones and Fredk. Jones, as executrix and executor named therein. His Honor made the order. BANE OF AUSTRALASIA V. DIXON. This was an action in which the Bank of Australasia was plaintiff and William Dixon defendant. The plaintiffs sued the defendant for .£SOO damages for having as alleged fraudulently obtained discount of certain bills. There was no appearance of the defendant. Dr. Foster now applied for judgment to be entered up for plaintiff by default, the measure of damages to bo assessed by the Registrar. His Honor said that Dr. Foster might take the order. Order made : Judgment for plaintiff in default of pica for such sum as the Registrar might report. WILL OF GEORGE HOLMES, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Thompson, his Honor made an order registering copy of will in lieu of original. WILL OF MARTHA COOPER, DECEASED. « This was a similar application, and Hi Honor made a like order. DEVERY V. DEVERY AND ANOTHER. Mr Thompson applied under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act for an order settling issues of fact herein. His Honor pointed out that Mr Thompson had omitted an issue raising the question of the mari-iage. Mr Thompson asked leave to amend. Leave to amend was given. TURNER V. TURNER AND ANOTHER. Mr Fored iy applied under the Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Act for an order settling issues of fact for trial before a jury at the July sessions of the Supreme Court at Christchurch. Mr George Harper appeared for the respondent and corespondent. His Honor pointed out that, as in Dcvery v Devei'y, there was no issue raising the question of the marriage of the parties. Surely that was necessary to be inserted. Mr Geoi’ge Harper said that the practice in the divorce cases tried here was to insert an issue raising the question of the marriage of the parties. A similar order was made herein to that in Devery v Dcvery, leave being given to amend by inserting an issue regarding the marriage of the parties. IN BANCO. PUBLIC TRUST ACT AND PE ESTATE OF T. H BEEVES (DECEASED). Mr George Harper applied, on behalf of Harry Bell Johnstone, their attorney, for an order declaring Harry Reeves, James Sexton Smith, and Edmund Fanner Hardwick as and being trustees entitled to possession of certain land and premises mentioned. Mr izard appeared for Mr G. H. Lee, a party interested, by being in possession of a moiety of the estate. Mr Garrick for the public trustee. Mr Izard applied for an adjournment, as his client had not been made acquainted with the application. His Honor could not quite see Mr Izard’s position or locus standi. Mr izai’d said that their claim was through a person, whose name was unknown to him, who had purchased at the time of T. H. Reeves. Mr Garrick said his instructions from the public trustee were to assist the pe itionors, so far as was possible, to obtain the order they required. Mr Harper read the petition, by which it appeared that T. H. Reeves came to Canterbury in 1850, and purchased certain land in the settlement. In 1852 ho left Canterbury presumably for Australia, but was never beard of by any of his relatives.

His Hon >r wanted to know whether there was any affidavit as to the age of T. H. Reeves when he was last heard of, because the law presumed the length of life to be of the average duration.

Mr Harper said ho did not think the age wis alleged in the petition, but be could shew it from the registration certificates. The father of T. H. Reeves died in 1863, and the present claimants were bis executors. If the Court were satisfied that T. H. Beeves died before his father in 1863, then the father was heir at law of T. H. Reeves. If not then the brother to T. H. Reeves was entitled to claim as to the property of T. Reeves as heir-at-law to his brother, L'. H. Reeves. He might say thattheageof i’.H. Reeves when last heard of inlSs2 was thirty-three. The petition now made was on behalf of Harry Bell Johnstone, the attorney of the executors of the father and also of the brother. If the father survived Thomas Hosier Reeves, he would be his heir-at-law, and a will made by him had constituted the applicants executors thereof. If the Court did not think that the father died subsequently then the brother Win. Walter Reeves would dc entitled as heir-at-law, and therefore they would he entitled to their order as attorney for him. In the meantime the public trustee had taken possession of 100 acres of the property, the remainder, of 100 acres, having by some means got into Mr Lee's possession. Mr Garrick sa'd he was instructed by the public trustee to consent to any order which the Court might tee its way clear to make. Hi ;rc was a contract on the deeds register for the whole of the land, made by persons presumedly with title, to Henry Bell Johnstone. On further research.s the public trustee finds that the railway had passed through a portion of the land. An enquiry had been held under the Public Works Act for compensation, and four persons claimed on this land, viz., G. W. H. Lee for whom Mr Izard appeared, David Fisher, Philip Briggs, and another. The enquiry found that certain sums were due to persons in possession, but they were not paid over, because they were not in a position to make title. His Honor thought that as Mr Lee was in possession, it would be better to have him represented fully by notice being given. Mr Garrick said that he thought that the order asked for was not a right one. What he thought should bo done was to have all parties in possession repre-ented, and thou have an issue rais’d, to be decided by a jury, as to the title of the alleged heir-at-law. Mr G. Harper said what they wanted was an order declaratory of their having proved their claim as heirs-at-law, which would get rid of the Public Trustee. It would then be for thorn to fight those in possession Mr Izard said that he could hardly say that he was properly treated if the proposed order was made, as no notice had been given him of this application. He might say that their allegation was that they had purchased at the same time as Thos. Hosier Reeves, or rather that they had found half the purchase money. His Honor said the aspect of the case seemed to promise almost endless litigation. Ultimately the application stood over, in order that notice might be given to persons in possession. KE ESTATE OF C. H. TUKNEK. Mr Garrick, on the part of Messrs Lightband, Allan and Co., applied for an adjudication of bankruptcy against the said Claries Henry Turner, for that ho had left the colony with a view to defeat his creditors. He would apply that an order ho made similar to that in rc Herdson, that notice of the sequestration might ho served at the last -place of residence. His Honor granted an order nisi of sequestration, returnable at a date to be fixed by the Registrar. LAND ACT 1877 AND TIE JOHN T>HAHAZON. This was a case stated by the Waste Lands Board under the Land Act of 1877, for the opinion of His Honor. Mr G. Harper appeared for the Board and the applicant, and read the case which was briefly as follows :—Eight sections containing 50 '0 acres of land were reserved for endowment of Girl ’ High school, and that proclamation of such reserve was made, and with plans, &c., laid on the table of both. Houses of Parliament tlu.ii in session. That on the2oth December an application was made by John Brabazon to purchase a por.iou of the said reserves. Under the secdon of the Land Act the reserve would be open for salons Crown lauds when the process of reservation was complete. The Board, when tho application came before them, deferred any do ision on tho application, as they were not aware whether the process of reservation had been completed, priority of choice being reserved to John Rrabnzon. Tho Board were in doubt whether th yy were empowered to entertain the application. The questions submitted for his Honor s opinion were —Ist, whether the reserves wore open for sale as Crown linds ; 2nd, whether John Brabazon is entitled to complete the purchase of tho said portion of the reserve applied for by him. [ Pho learned quoted tho 12th section of the Land Act of 18(6, and subsection 0, contenting that nil bad been done by the Board to bring the land so reserved within the Act. Also the saving clause in the Laud Act 1877, which excepted from dealing with under that Act any applications which wero not at the time qf ils parsing decided.! TJutlor these cuv* ' cumsfguces lie would submit that Urn ajHfficiu

tion of Mr Brahazon was entitled to bo entertained by the Board, as not having been made prior to the passing of the Land Act 1877. His Honor said that he was of opinion that the Board should proceed to consider ax d deal with the application of Mr Brahazon. Order accordingly: Answers in the affirmative to both questions of special case submitted. PARSONS AND MILLS V TIMARU AND GLADSTONE BOARD OP WORKS. Mr George Harper applied on behalf of the defendants that the demurrer stand over until next banco sitting. His Honor granted the application. LANE V SAME. A similar order was made in this case, on the application of Mr George Harper for the defendants.