SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXI, Issue 1776, 29 October 1879, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Tuesday, Octobee 28. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. The Judge took his seat at the usual hour, eleven o'clock. BE DEBTORS AND OBEDITOBS ACT AND BE W. H. HABTLBY. This was an application by William Henry Hartley, bankrupt, for an order of discharge. Mr Bamford. Opposing creditors were present, who had passed a resolution that they would take 10s in the £ as a settlement, and opposed the bankrupt's discharge on the ground that this demand ought to be satisfied. His Honor said it was not sufficient for creditors to pass such a resolution—they must impeach the applicant on good grounds. William Hazelhurst, one of the creditors, stated that four creditors had proved, whose claims in the aggregate amounted to £2O. The debts altogether amounted to £BO odd. The opposition was set up on the ground that the bankrupt had been in constant work for three years, and was able to pay. For the past twelve months he had been in Government employ at the rate of 7s per day. His Honor ruled that it was a case in which the other side should be present. The case was therefore adjourned for the appearance of the bankrupt. IN BE EBNBBT NICHOLAS WILTBEBQ. An application for an order of discharge of the debtor. Mr Bamford for the applicant. There was no opposition, and the discharge was granted. GOODS OF CHBISTOPHBB TAVLOB, DECEASED. An application for leave to issue letters of administration to Isaao Edward Taylor, brother and next of kin to the said deceased. . The order was granted. GOODS OF JOHN STEVENS, DECEASED. Mr Perceval applied for an order for leave to issue letters of administration to the widow of deceased. The order as prayed for was granted. IN BANCO. BIIODES AND OTHERS T GRANGES AND OIHEBS. Mr Harper for the plaintiffs, who sought for a decree for the removal of a conveyance from the register, and that the correct conveyance should be substituted. The order was granted as prayed for. WEIGHT V WILSON.

This was an application for a rule nisi to enter a verdict for the defendant upon the 14th and 15th issues, and for a new trial. Mr Garrick appeared in support of the application. His Honor pointed out that this was a case for a specific relief. No verdict should be entered. After some little argument the case was allowed to stand over. WEIGHT V WILSON. Mr Joynt appeared in this case, to move the Court for a rule nisi, to show cause why relief should not be granted to the plaintiff against forfeiture for breach of covenant to insure against loss by fire. His Honor said |no such motion could be made at this stage of the proceedings, and suggested that it ought to be substantive proceedings. Mr Joynt withdrew his motion in view of the objection raised, but wished to know when his learned friend, Mr Garrick, was likely to move again. Mr Garrick said it was possible he would not do so, after what had fallen from the Court. Ultimately it was resolved that the first case should come on again at the next sitting in Banco. LAND TBANSIBB ACT AND BE BSTATB OP JANE WILSON. This was an action to show cauie why the caveat lodged by James Wilson against the land referred to herein should not be removed, &c. Ordered to stand over till next sitting. DEBTORS AND OEBDITOBB ACT AND BE BBBIA AND W. BOBINSON. An action to show cause to rule nisi of October 10th. Mr Joynt read affidavits to show that the bills in the case had been discounted. In the absence of Mr Wynn Williams the case was allowed to stand over till next sitting day. GLENN T BBITTAIN. For argument of demurrer, the respective parties being represented by Dr. Foster and Mr Harper. In this case (for argument on demurrer) the plaintifE was one of the purchasers of the Linwood estate (sold some time back by Messrs Matson and Co.) ; the purchaser claimed return of his deposit, with interest and expenses, on the ground that the vendors had made out no title to the land.

The defendant pleaded first, that the plaintiff had never asked for any abstract; second, that he had tendered no conveyance ; and third, that he had not paid the second instalment on the purchase money. The plaintiff demurred to these pleas, as being insufficient in law. After hearing Dr. Foster in support of the demurrer, and Mr Harper in support of the pleas, His Honor decided in favor of the plaintiff with regard to the first plea, and in favor of the defendant with regard to the other two. His Honor was of opinion that it was not necessary for the plaintiff to ask for any abstract, but that it was necessary, before claiming a return of his deposit money, to show that he had paid the second instalment of the purchase money, and that he had tendered the conveyance. The Court then rose.