SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2076, 19 October 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PRIUS.

Ttthsdat, Ootobbb 19. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] The sittings of the Court were resumed at 10 a.m.

OBBDIXOBS' TBUBXEE IK THE BSTATB OF G. T. OIABK: V GOODMAS AKD OTHBBB. This was a case in which Alexander Munro, as creditors' trustee in the estate of George Taylor Clark, sought to set aside a deed made by the debtor settling his property on his wife and by whioh the defendants herein were made trustees. The plaintiff had instituted a divorce suit against his wife and the debtor was made 00-reßpondent. Judgment wbb given dissolving the marriage and making the debtor liable for the costs of the suit. These costs formed the debt for whioh the plaintiff proved, and it was now sought to be established that the debtor had made the settlement of his property to defeat the creditors and within the terms of the Act.

. For the plaintiff, Mr George Harper, with him Mr Thompson. For the defendant, Mr Joynt, with him Mr Bruges. Mr J. P. Jameson was chosen foreman of the special jury. Mr Harper opened the case for the plaintiff and proceed to call evidence. After the case had proceeded some while, The foreman said that there was one of the jurors who was a creditor in the estate, and thus interested in the matter.

Mr Lee, the juryman referred to, said that he was not aware until just then that the case was one in whioh he was [interested at all. Clark was such a common name, and it did not strike him that the case was the one he had an interest in until the name of Munro was mentioned. His Honor said that there was no fault in the juryman. What did the counsel proposo to do ? They could agree to go on with eleven jurymen, or to consent to allow the gentleman to serve without making any objection. Mr Joynt asked for a few moments' conference with Mr Bruges. After a short absence

Mr Joynt returned into Court, and said they were not prepared to interfere at all in the matter, but let the case stand with the Court.

Mr Harper said that he could not make any suggestion; of oourse, if they went on with the case, the decision could be npset on the point of a juryman being interested. There was no doubt that Mr Lee was interested, and, therefore, he could not go on with the case.

His Honor asked Mr Joynt whether he was prepared to consent to the discharge of the juryMr Joynt could not do that. Mr Harper said in that cose he must withdraw the record.

His Honor thought that this could not be done, as he had gone into his case. Mr Joynt submitted that his learned friend must take a non-suit.

Mr Harper contended that this being an equity suit no nonsuit could be had. His Honor said the question now was whether without consent of both parties he could discharge the jury. Mr Harper quoted a case in which a juror* had been taken ill and the Court had been held to have power to discharge the jury. Perhaps M* 1 Lee might be taken suddenly ill, whioh would relieve them of all difficulty. He thought the best way out of the difficulty would be to enter a discontinuance.

His Honor—Yes; but what am I to do with the jury ? Mr Harper thought that the case might be discontinued by them at any time. His Honor said that it appeared to him that the only thing to be done was for Mr Harper to enter a discontinuance. Mr Harper said that this was what he should do.

A discontinuance was then entered, and His Honor discharged the jury. The Court then adjourned to Thursday.