SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2086, 30 October 1880, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN BANCO. Fhiday, Octobbb 28. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in banco at II a.m. NATIONAL BANK OP NEW ZEALAND V MACINTOSH. In this matter the special case as settled between the parties was ordered to be printed, and copies to be forwarded to tho judges at the Court of Appeal. TBUSTEES OP D. BOBINSON T BOBINSON. In this case His Honor referred tho argument as to interrogatories to chambers. HABKOP (APPELLANT) T CAELYON (bbbpondbnt). Mr Austin appeared for the appellant. Mr White for the respondent. Mr White took a preliminary objection that the notice of appeal given was not sufficient under the Act. His Honor overruled this objection. Mr White then took another objection, viz., that the conviction had not been returned to the Court, hence there was nothing to quash. Farther, also, the statement of the case was not transmitted to the Supreme Court within the fourteen days required by the Act.

His Honor pointed out that Mr White had waived his right to object by consenting to an adjournment. Mr Austin said that the case was sent within the time, because it was to be com- ' juted from the date at which he received it ::rom the justice. His Honor held this to be a good answer, but what had Mr Austin to say to the absence of the conviction. This appeared to him to be fatal, because it was upon the validity of the conviction that the Court had to decide. Mr Austin said in that case he would ask that the case should be adjourned in order to allow of the conviction being sent up. His Honor did not think he had power to do this.

Mr Joynt, os an amicus curia, submitted that in the case of Ryan v Felton, which was a case on appeal from the conviction, the conviction was not before the Court, yet his Honor heard the appeal. His Honor said that the case was stated on the validity of the conviction. Hence the conviction must be in the Court.

Mr Austin quoted from his Honor’s work to show that the contents of the case were necessary to bo embodied in the case stated, and as this was done in the one now before the Court he submitted there was enough. His Honor said the question was whether the statement by the Resident of the case was sufficient without the conviction to enable the Court to decide upon the appeal. After some further argument, His Honor decided to hear the appeal, reserving the point raised by Mr White for the Court of Appeal. The case on appeal was that the appellant had been fined by the respondent for having a cow wandering on the railway line near Temuka, The defence set up in the Court below was that the line was not fenced, there being an opening for some distance, and that, therefore, the conviction was bad. His Honor said on the case, as stated, there was not a shadow of a ground for a conviction, as there was no proof of the line being fenced. He thought he should have to call upon Mr White to show cause. Mr Austin quoted the sections of the Public Works Act applicable to the case, and contended that there could be no conviction, as the line was not fenced within the Act. Mr White contended that the defence, if admitted, would come to this : That if any gap existed on the line from Amberloy to the Bluff, an information laid on the Christchurch or any other section would not be tenable. His Honor took time to consider. NEIL MUEPEY (APPELLANT) Y. BHEAES (respondent). Mr Austin for the appellant ; Mr White for the respondent. Mr White took the preliminary objeolion that the bond had not been entered into with the respondent as under the Act, but with Mr Richmond Beetham, the Resident Magistrate, who was a stranger to the case. Mr Austin quoted section 100 to show that all that was necessary was to give a bond to the satisfaction of a Justice of the Peace.

His Honor overruled the objection. The case was that the appellant, in the Court below, had been sued by the respondent for a sum of £21145, for goods supplied by the plaintiff on an alleged guarantee given by the firm of Jonas Hart and Wildie. The firm declined to pay the amount, and then the respondent, as plaintiff in the Court below, sued the appellant, and the Resident Magistrate gave judgment for the plaintiff, against which the defendant now appealed. Mr White was not called on, and his Honor dismissed the appeal with costs.