SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 1978, 26 June 1880, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Friday, June 25. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in Chambers at 10.30 a.m. BE S. J. GAMMAN. Mr Joynt applied herein for the debtor's •discharge. Mr McContsel appeared to oppose. After argument, His Honor made an order that the debtor, before obtaining his discharge, should be examined. BB EDWIN WAOLBY. On the application of Mr Slater, His Honor zasdo p.n order herein for costs. BB MICHAEL BONAN. Mr Holmes applied for an order of discharge herein. His Honor inido the order. BE JOHN BOMBBS. On the application of Mr Holmes, a similar order was made herein. BB WILIIAJI BIiTTETT AND OTHBBB. Mr Garriok applied herein for an order declaring deed of assignment duly executed. His Honor made the order. BB ALBXANDBB GALLBTIY, DECEASED. Mr George Harper applied for probate to Andrew Galletly, as executor. His Honor made the order as prayed. UK JAMES TnOMAS, DBOBASBD. Mr Joyce applied herein for probate to Elizabeth Thomas, as widow and executrix. Hb Honor granted the order. BB JOHN BEVINS, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Joyce, His Honor granted probate to Hamot and Thomas Bevins as executors. BB SYBILLA SETEB WASHER, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Thompson, for Mr Joyce, probate was granted herein to Thomas Mollet as executor. KB ASBIGNMBNT OP J. L. WIMON. Mr Cowlishaw moved for order declaring deed of assignment herein duly executed. His Honor made an order, declaring deed completely executed. BB GEOBGB CONK. On tho application of Mr Gresson, his Honor made an order of discharge herein. BB A. J. M'GBBGOB. On tho applioation of Mr Stringer, his Honor made a like order in this case. BB THOMAS DOBN. In this case, which was a similar application by Mr Stringer, his Honor granted the order of discharge. BB ALEXANDER COWAN. On Mr Gresson's application, his Honor made an order for discharge of the debtor. BB HBSEST LABCOMBE. Mr Spao'onan obtained an order of discharge herein. BB J. 1. TTTHLBY, DBOBASBD. Mr Spaokman applied for probate herein to Henry Crooks, as sole surviving executor. His Honor made the order. BB GEORGE QUIGLEY, DECEASES. Mr Gresson applied for letters of administration to Ellen Quigley, widow of deceased. His Honor made the order. BE CATHERINE ANSON, DBOBASBD. Mr Izard, for Mr Harper, applied for probate to T. H. Anson, one of the executors named. His Honor made the order, reserving leave to the other executors to come in. BE SABAH ANN GENET, DBOBASBD. Mr Stringer applied for probate to J. F. O. Genet, as sole executor. His Honor made the order as prayed. BE THOMAS TOMBS, DBOBASBD. On the applioation of Mr Fere day, his Honor granted probate to Wm. and George Tombs as executors. BB BOBBBT MATTHEWS. Mr Spaokman applied herein for discharge of the debtor. His Honor made the order. BB CHABLK3 SMITH, DECEASED. Mr Oowlishaw applied for letters of administration to Ann Logan Smith, as widow. His Honor made the order. BE .TAMES BOW, DECBASED. On the applioation of Mr Spaokman, his Honor made an order for probate to B. F. Holdernesse, as sole executor. BE MATTHEW HILL, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Stringer, his Honor granted probate to Mary McLean Hill as widow. BB HBNBY SI.ATHB. Mr Stringer applied for the discharge of the debtor. His Honor made the order. BB AUBHTJ DBAKB. Mr Bruges applied for the discharge of the debtor. Mr Stringer appeared to oppose. His Honor pointed out that the certificate of the trustee was informal and refused to make the order. The trustee, it appeared, had gone to England. He would desire it to be known that trustees had no right to leave the jurisdiction without coming to the Court or getting another trustee appointed. He would make no order. SITTINGS ZZV BANCO. MUNBO V CIABKE AND SAVAGE. In this case Mr Thompson applied for an injunction restraining the defendants from dealing with certain monies in their hands, the injunction to be served at last known place of abode of Clarke, who had left the jurisdiction. JAMESON T FIELD. This was a return to a rule nisi directed to Frank Guinness, Besident Magistrate, calling cpon him to show cause why a mandamus should not issue, directing him to issue a distress warrant against the goods of the defendant on a judgment recovered by the plaintiff against him. - The facts of the case were that on 24th February the plaintiff herein obtained judgment against the defen- j dant in the Besident Magistrate's Court at Ashburton, for £67 18s 43. A distress warrant was applied for, but the Besident Magistrate declined to issue the same on the ground that notice of appeal had been given by the defendant in, the action, and that a bond for the prosecution thereof had been entered into by the defendant. This was done on the 27fch February. Mr Joynt appeared for the Besident Magistrate and the defendant, and to show cause to the rule. ' MrGeorge Harper for the plaintiff, and in support of the ru'e. Mr Joynt read the affidavits in support of his case,' and submitted that all steps had been taken under section 100 of the Besident Magistrates Act, 1867. A draft case had sent to the solicitor for the plaintiff, but had never been returned, and therefore the laches, i£ any, rested with the plaintiff. - •• Mr Harper replied, and after a lengthened argument,'' His Honor made an order directing the mandamus to issue to the Sheriff, commanding him to levy unless security was given by bond with two sureties within a week ; the Besident Magistrate .to settle a case for appeal within a month. WBIGHT V. WIISON. This case, wbioh was tried at the Nisi Prius sittings in Ootober, 1879, was an action for specific performance. The plaintiff sought to obtain from the defendant a deed of conveyance of certain property in Lower High street, and at the trial a verdict for plaintiff was substantially returned by the jury. The plaintiff now sought to obtain a decree calling on the defendant to execute a deed of conveyance of tho property to him. Mr Joynt for the plaintiff and in support of the motion for a decree. Mr Garrick, with him Mr Holmes, for the defendant and contra. The questions at issue between the parties were those raised by the findings of the jury upon the two issues put to them as to the alleged breaches of covenant by tho plaintiff in sub-letting a portion of the property without the consent of the lessor, and also as to the keeping the premises insured by the plaintiff. A lengthy argument between learned counsel ensued, and his Honor took time to consider.