SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2059, 29 September 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Tuesday, September 28. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston,] Hie Honor sat in banco at 11 a.m. BYAL (APPELLANT) V PELTON (bESPONDENT) , This was an appeal against a judgment of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, in which the appellant was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for having no lawful means of support. Mr Joynt appeared for the respondent. Mr Harper for the appellant, and quoted cases to show that tho conviction was wrong. His Honor said that on tho evidence he would not have felt justified in convicting, though the appellant might be the worst person in the world. There was no doubt tho man was living an immoral life, but he had money in the Bank ; hence it could not be said that ho had no visible means of support. After some argument, Mr Harper said that if the ease were remitted to the Magistrates again they would re-state it.

Mr Joynt contended that this was a case which need not be sent back, as there was sufficient evidence before the Court to decide the appeal. Ho submitted that this man had offended against public morality publicly, and in the language of the Act had no “ lawful ” visible means of support. Mr Harper renewed his application for a re statement of the ease.

His Honor said that he thought the Bench had overstepped their power in arresting a man without a warrant, and also that the Vagrant Act had been somewhat strained.He was always inclined to support the decisions of tho Courts below when it could be done on tho facts. In this esse, however/ tho magistrates having decided that under the Act the account given by the prisoner as toi his means was not satisfactory under the first sub-section of second section, tho judgment of the Court would be that the conviction be upheld. NATIONAL BANK V MACINTOSH. This case stood over until Thursday next, to enable Mr Stout to be present. MABSHALL AND ANOTHER V LOUIBBON. This was an argument on demurrer to tho plaintiffs’ declaration. Mr Joynt appeared for defendant and in support of the demurrer. M> Harper for plaintiffs, and contra to the demurrer. The case arose out of an action brought by plaintiffs to recover from defendant rent of certain shops assigned the defendant by Richmond, together with the premises known as tho Terminus Hotel. The demurrer was against the part of the declaration which alleged that tho defendants became seized of the shops in connection with the premises. His Honor took time to consider. PBIEDLAHDEB 8808. (APPELLANTS) V. BBOWH (BESPONDENT ) This was an appeal against the decision of tho Resident Magistrate at Ashburton. Mr G. Harper for the appellants. Mr Garrick for the respondent.

In this case the appellants sued the respondent for £99 odd in the Court below on a guarantee given by them for threshing, and now appealed against the decision. Mr Harper addressed the Court for the appellants. Mr Garrick replied. His Honor delivered judgment, allowing the appeal. FBIEDLANDBR BROS. (APPELLANTS) V. SKIPPERS (RESPONDENT) This was an appeal against the judgment of the Resident Magistrate of Ashburton, in which the appellants had been sued on a guarantee to pay a certain amount of money for one Moore so soon as his grain was delivered. Judgment was given in the Court below for the amount, against which the defendant and now appellant came to the Supreme Court on appeal. Mr George Harper stated the case for the appellant. Mr Garrick replied to the arguments adduced by Mr Harper, His Honor dismissed the appeal with costs. The Court then rose.