SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1692, 23 July 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Tuesday, July 22. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] IN CHAMBERS. His Honor sat in Chambers at 11 a.m. WRIGHT V WILSON. This was an application for settlement of issues and fixing time and place of triaL Tho issues were settled, time of trial fixed for next session of the Supreme Court at Christchurch. On tho application of Mr Garrick, his Honor granted a special jury. EE WILL OP JAMES DUFF, DECEASED. On tho motion of Mr Douglas, his Honor granted probate to Catherine Duff, widow and sole executrix. EE SAMUEL W. PAIMEE, Mr Bamford applied herein for order of discharge. His Honor made the order as prayed. EE DEED OF JOHN SMITH, Mr Douglas applied for an order declaring complete execution of deed. His Honor made tho order declaring complete execution. BE DEED OF JOHN SCOTT. On the application of Mr Joynt, his Honor made a like order in this case. EE PETITION OF A. W. A. LOB_. This was an application for the appointment of new trustees. On the motion of Mr Hobden, Hia Honor granted tho application. EE JOHN WAYNE. In this case the debtor appeared to answer certain questions put by the Court as to the refusal by him to give information to the trustees. After hearing the evidence of bankrupt, His Honor, on the application of Mr Bamford, made tho order of discharge, IN BJKCO. EE PETITION OF SAEAH DACK. Mr Hobden applied herein for an order enabling the trustee to sell certain lands. His Honor made the order as prayed. CLEAVE V KINO. This case, which was an argument on cross rules obtained for a now trial or a non-suit and for leave to increase damages, stood over for Mr Macassey to argue as to an amendment proposed to be made in the declaration. Mr Macassey now appeared, and submitted that the Court had power to make an amendment in the declaration without having a new trial. His Honor took time to consider. BXPARTE SAMUEL BOYLE. Mr Garrick applied for an order herein under the Fraudulent Debtors Act enabling the bankrupt to be prosecuted under sub-section 2 section 4. The ground of the application was that tho debtor had fraudulently conveyed certain property and sheep to his son, a minor. His Houor took time to consider. BE ARBITRATION OF H. MATSON AND CO. AND W. BATEMAN. Mr Garrick applied for a rule nisi calling

upon W. Bateman to show cause why an attachment should not issue against him for diaobedience of an order of Court herein.

His Honor made the order, rale nisi returnable at next banco sitting fourteen days after service.

COURT Y STUDHOLMB. Mr Macassey with him Mr Jameson, applied on behalf of defendant for n rule nisi calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why a new trial thonld not be had, or nonsuit should not ha entered, pursuant to leave reserved, on the ground —(1) That the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and (21 that discoveries have been made of important evidence since the trial which it would not have been possible to produce at the trial. _ .... Mr Macassey read affidavits in support of his application, one of them by one Drummond, who was present on the hills on the occasion of the fire at Waimate, and that the fire which came on to Court’s property was a different fire altogether to the one alleged to have originated on the defendant’s land. An affidavit by W, A. Jameson was rend, stating that the Witness Drummond had only reached them when defendant’s case was closed. Mr Macassey pointed out that the evidence was strongly corroborative of the evidence led at the trial of the case for the defendant. Hia Honor said that in a case like this, where the application for a new trial was based on the discovery of additional evidence, it was sary that the utmost care should be exercised to see that it was proved indisputably that the evidence could not be given at the time of the trial. _ Mr Macassey then read an affidavit of the efforts made by the defendant’s solicitor to get the evidence of one Charles Smith on behalf the defendant, but unavailingly. Affidavits were also read of the failure of the efforts of the defendant’s solicitor to serve a subpoena on him. He (Mr Macassey) submitted that on these affidavits there was good ground to believe that the boy had been kept away. He pointed out that the boy was mentioned on the trial as having been engaged at the mill in putting out sparks. His Honor said that something like Drummond’s evidence had been given on the trial by the defendant, and the question was whether Drummond’s evidence would have so greatly strengthened the defence as to have influenced the jury. Mr Macassey said that the evidence of Drummond was very much more in their favor than any of their witnesses. His Honor pointed out to Mr Macassey that it was not new ground. The witnesses called by the defendant at the trial spoke to the same facts. Mr Macassey said that most of their witnesses were spectators from afar off, whilst Drummond was actually on the ground itself, and spoke positively in his affidavit of the origin of the fire. The other ground for a new trial or nonsuit of plaintiff was that the verdict was againt the weight of evidence ; viz., (1) on the question of negligence; (2) on the question of vis major (commonly called the act of God), whereby tba plaintiff’s injury was remote and indirect ; (3) on tbo question of existence of other causes contributing to plaintiff’s injury. Mr Macassey then proceeded to argue the nonsuit points or for a new trial at some length. His Honor granted a rule nisi , returnable on the 19th August, for nonsuit or new trial on the ground of the verdict being against the weight of evidence, and the discovery of new evidence since the trial.