SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1409, 21 August 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Tuesday, August 20. Stefore His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.J is Honor sat in Chambers at 11 a.m. TWKNTYMAN AND OTHKBB V. JEBBON. Mr Gariick appeared for the plaintiff in this case, to settle issues and fix date of trial. Ir. the absence of counsel representing defendant, Mr George Harpor stating that he had not been instructed to appear on this motion, the issues only were settled, leaving the date and place of trial fcr a future motion. BJB WM. DEAKIN, Mr George Harper applied for the discharge of the debtor under the Debtors and Creditors Act. His Honor pointed out that the chairman of the meeting of creditors had signed a certificate in the form which he (the Judge) required from trustees where no meeting of creditors had been held instead of certifying that the proper number of creditors attended the meeting at which a resolution granting the debtor's discharge was passed. The certificate was informal, and the application must therefore stand over. Mr Harper t aid the debtor had paid 20s in the £, with interest. His Honor said that was all the more reason why the creditors should give a proper discharge. Application to stand over for filing of amended certificate. WILL OP GEOBGB BABLY, DBOBABED. On the application of Dr. Foster, his Honor granted probate herein to the executrix and executors named in the will. RH PETITION OP JANB CAIN AND OTHKBB. Mr Wynn Williams applied under the Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act for an order reviving the petition herein. It had lapsed from the death of one of the petitioners, which necessitated the coming to the Court for an order of revival. His Honor made the order. IN BANCO. [Before their Honors Mr Justice Johnston and Mr Justice Williams] XEMPTHOBNB V LOUIBBON. This case was ordered to stand over, Mr Joynt being out of town. grbkn (appellant) y peter pender (respondent). A similar adjournment was made in this case. CTONINGHAM V DANN. This case was ordered to stand over. LAND TBANBPEB ACT AND BE CAVEAT OP G. BOBERTB. This was a case in which a caveat had been entered by Mr Roberts against dealing with a certain piece of land therein described. A rule nisi had been granted on 13th April calling npon Mr Garrick to show cause why a caveat lodged with the district land registrar on the 20th March, as affecting sections 479, 480, 481, and 482 should not be removed, on two grounds (1) that the grounds upon which •uch caveat was lodged are not grounds upon ■which a caveat can be lodged; (2) that the caveat was false in substance. Mr Garrick appeared to show cause against She rule. Mr Travers contra, and in support of the rule. Mr Garrick opened his case by reading certain affidavits sworn by George Roberts as to the making of an agreement for the conveyance of the sections named to him by one J. Howard Wallace, the vendor of the said sections. Affidavits were put in from Mr Travers, detailing the history of the case, and affirming that the said Roberts had not kept his engagement with the said Wallace, and that the agreement entered into with Wallace was off, and that, Buoh being the case, the sale to one Newton Coleridge was bona fide. He (Mr Garrick) submitted that the affidavit ot Mr Travers was of no use whatever, because it did not speak to matters within his own knowledge ; it was all from belief and information. He submitted very Btrongly that Mr Travers' affidavit was utterly worthless as regarded the issues before the Court. He might say that he had sworn an affidavit that he had issued a writ against both Roberts and Coleridge for colourable collusion as against Wallace. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston asked whether the proceeding by caveat was not based upon something which Mr Garrick had not yet established, but would have to do.

Mr Gariick said that ho had only to establish a prima facie case when the caveat would become an interlocutory injunction. His Honor Mr Justice Johnston asked whether under the circumstances, the argument would not be useless, as Mr Garrick's great point would be to establish fraud, which he now proposed to do before a jury by an action. Would not Mr Garrick be entitled to ask for an interim injunction until the case was heard.

Mr Travers said that he was willing to give an undertaking boforo the Court that if the caveat was removed, and his learned friend filed a bill for an injunction, nothing should be done with the land pending the re-jult of the action now pending. He would however desire to point out that if Mr Roberts felt that he had been deprived of his property by fraud he had his remedy, because the Act of 1876 had provided for the recovery of all the value of the property from tho Assurance Fund. But Mr Roberts had barred himself from taking advantage of this clause, because he had not registered his contract. Some argument took place between the learned counsel as to the costs of the application, but ultimately Mr Garrick declined to accept the offer made by Mr Travers. After hearing argument on both sides, Their Honors reserved judgment.