SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2207, 23 March 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Tuesday, March 22. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in the Court Chamber! at 11 a.m. RB LUNDT, DECEASED. Mr Button applied for probate herein to the executors named in the will. His Honor made the order as prayed. MCMILLAN T SMITH. Mr Spackman appeared herein to ask for an order granting execution against the lands of tbe defendant, notwithstanding the filing of certain deeds of inspectorship. Mr Georgo Harper appeared for the defendant, and, after some argument, it was found that the filing of the deed relied upon had not been completed within the time. Order as prayed, with costs. BB CHARLES SHEPHEBD, DECEASED. In this case Mr Joyce obtained an order granting probate to the widow of deceased. BE KOBT. MCDOWALL. DECEASED. Mr Holmea, for Mr Garrick, applied herein for an order granting probate to the widow of the deceased and other executors. His Honor granted the order. BE JAMES RAE, DECEASED. Mr Izard applied herein for lotters of administration to Catherine Slo;in, sister of deceased. The order was made as prayed. RB JOHN CARTER, DECEASED. On the motion of Mr Izard administration to the widow was grantod herein. BE MICHAEL CARR, DECBASED. Mr Iz.wd applied herein for letters of administration to the widow. Hia Honor made the order. RE JAMBS TOWNSKND, DECBASED. On the application of Mr Izard his Honor granted probate to the widow of deceased. BK WM. HHmtT BBSAOH. Mr Izard applied herein for the debtor s discharge. Hia Honor made the order.

RE JOSEPH GARDINER. . This was a (similar application, and his Honor made the order as prayed. CREDITOR'S TRUSTEBB OF O. T. CLARKE V GOODMAN AND OTHERS. This was an application by Mr Thompson on behalf of plaintiff for settlement of issuca and fixing of date of trial. His H jiior settled the issues, and fixed the trial by special jury, on April 21st, at Christchurch. PUBLIC WORKS ACT AND BE CLAIM OF C. B. LEADLET. Mr Bruges applied hi-rein for an order to have this case tried before a compensation Court at Ashbnrton instead of Christohurch as fixed. Mr Harper appeared to consent. His Honor made the order fixing tho Court at Ashbnrton, and appointing District Judge Ward as his depnty to preside at tho Court. ROTBTON V EVANS. In this case by consent defendant's proposed issues were placed on the record. The trial was fixed by special jury at Timaru on Tuesday, June 14th. RE W. T. BAUGH, DECEASED ~On tho application of Mr Salter, his Honor mado an order granting probate to executrix and executor named. RK (IBOIWI BROADLET, DECEASED. Mr Salter applied herein for letters of administration to the widow. Bis Honor made the order. IN BANCO. LOUISS3N V MEEK AND OTHERS. His Honor delivered judgment herein substantially for defendants. COLONIAL BANK OF NEW ZEALAND (APPELLANT) V SERGEANT (RKePONDENT). Mr Joynt for appellant. Mr Harper for reapondent. This was an appeal from a judgment of the District Court at Christohurch. The plaintiff in the Court below, now appellant, sued the defendant, now respondent, for .£2OO for rent of certain premises passed by deed from Saunders and Henderson to the Bank. In the Court below tho defence was that'there had been a surrender of th« lease to Saunders and Henderson, and upon this judgment was given for defendant. The question on appeal was whether in point of law this was good Learned counsel on both sides having addressed the Court, His Honor took timo to consider. TBIBDLANDER BROS. (APPELLANTS) V ROBERTS (RESPONDENT). Mr G. Harper for the appellant. Mr Garrick for respondents. This was an appeal from the judgment of the District Court at Chriatchurch. Mr Harper said that there had been a misapprehension in the facts on which the judgment was given in the Court below, and that the Judge would have ordered a new trial had the appeal not been pending. Mr Garrick said he was prepared to uphold the judgment of the Court below as a good one. His Honor said that he could not cro into a case where the Jndge had said that the judgment would not have been given had there not been a misapprehension of the facts.

Mr Garrick said if he w*s prepared to convince his Honor that the statement of the Judge of the Court below, that he would have given a different judgment had he not been misinformed, was wrong in point of law, then a new trial conld not go. His Honor said that either the case must go back to the District Jndge for grunting a new trial or he must go into the oase without reference to the statement of the Conrt below as to misinformation. Mr Garrick submitted that the latter course was the proper one. His Honor said that really, under the statement of the Jndge of the Court below, there was no judgment at all; hence it must be remitted for a judgment before the Supreme Court could decide on the appeal. Perhaps the beat way wonld be for the case to be re-stated. Mr Harper would agree to this. Mr Garrick consented to this course. His Honor made an order for the re-etatement of the case. UNION STEAMSHIP COMPANY (APPELLANTS) V FUSED (RESPONDENT).

Mr H. N. Nalder for appellants; Mr Joynt for respondent. This was a case on npp?al from the Resident Magistrate's Court, Christchuroh. The plaintiff in the Court below, now respondent, sued the appellants for damages for the loss of a box snipped on board the steamship Tararui. The respondent was a passenger on board the Garonne from London to Melbourne, and by arrangement betweon the Orient Company and the Union Steamship Company on the ship of the latter to New Zealand. In the Court below the defense set up was that the plaintiff had made no contract with or paid any money to the Union Company, but with the Orient Company, who were the proper persona to be sued. 'J he Resident Magistrate, in the Court below, save judgment for the plaintiff on the ground that two tickets had been issued by the Orient Company to the plaintiff, one to take him to Melbourne, and the other by tho Union Company to New Zealand. His Honor said he must call upon Mr Joynt to show how he made the appellants responsible, as the contract was made by the Orient Company. It was one of those hard cases in which one would wish that the law was with the weaker. '

Mr Joynt submitted that the fact that the second ticket given to the plaintiff to carry him to New Zealand had been sent to Sydney by the Union Company to collect the fare of the respondent from the Orient Company showed that the latter was the agent of the former. His 8 onor asked Mr .Toynt what would be the position of tbe case if the Orient Comtany had sent the respondent on by any other line of steamers. Mr Joynt said of conrce that would be a different state of things. But here the Union Company contracted with the Orient Company to carry the passeDgers, and they had done bo, receiving payment for bo doing, whether from the respondent or any other person ' on Mb behalf did not affect the case. Besides, the letters and actions of the appellants showed that they took npon themselves the responsibility of the care of the_ luggage of the respondent. He should submit that on the facts there was an implied contract between the company and the respondent, they having carried him for hire.

Mr Nalder would submit that there was nothing in the case to justify the assumption upon which the judgment was foanded that the Orient Company were agents for the Union Company. It was clearly laid down in all tbe cases that the party making the contract became responsible wben the destination went beyond their jurisdiction. Mr Joynt said he would abandon the point that the evidence showed that tho Orient Company were the agents of the Union Company, but be went on to say that the judgment could be upheld if the Court was of opinion that the evidence went to show that there was an implied contract. Mr Nalder submitted that tbe test of the matter was thii : Supposing that the Oripnt Company shonld say when the sec >nd ticket came up to them that they refused to pay it, could the Union Company come upon the passenger for tbe passage money ? He thought not, and that tbe passenger would I imply ' say that he made no contract with the Union Company, hut with the Orient Comoany. [Case* cited iu support of argument. Blake v Great Western Railway Company, 31 L T. Kxch : 3tS ; Bristol anrl Exeter Riilway Company v Collins, 29 L. T. Exch : 41 ; Mytton v Midland Railway Company, 4 H. and N. 615. J His Honor said this was a very hard case indeed As a matter of law there was clearly no evidence of the liability of the Union Company. Tho judgment io. the Court below should have been a nonsuit. The appeal would be allowed, with costs. PUBLIC WOEKS ACT AND KK CLAIM OF EOBKRT WILKIK.

Mr MeTlnith, one of tho assessors in this ease, which was part heard, having been taken suddenly ill, Hia Honor said he would have to fix another day for the trial, and the ease would therefore be postponed until April 26th By consent the case could be adjourned on the next day by tho presiding Judse. ....... -, Learn?d counsel on both Bides having agreed to this, the Court will be formally opened this morning, and then a l *] rarned to April 26th. BANK OF NKW SOOTH WALKS V CAMPBELL In this case, which was an argument on deraurre-, judgment was given by con-ent for the pUintiff on demuner, leave to defendant to plead. , „ For plaintiff, Mr Garrick; for defendant, Mr Harper.

FORD V T.INDESAT. Dr. Foster, for tne plaintiff, npplied for a dismissal of suit and payment of costs by defendant. , , . Mr Stanley Edwards for the defendant, contrn. , , „ ~. ~ In this case the plaintiff asked that his smt be dismissed, and that the defendant be ordered to P'y the costs of proceedings. isis Honnr doubted whether he eonld do this. Tho plaintiff had now come t) vk th .t the sub be dismissed, and yet th'rt the costs should b» paid by the defendant. What the plaintiff wanted was thai the defen'ant shiu d p*y his cobts, though he had failed. He hald that an unsuccessful plaintiff had no ruht whatever to come thern and ask that the defendant should pay his costs. Dr. Foster, aftfr a lengthy ar'ument, asked that the caso should stand over, to enable him to produce authorities upholding his contention. Mr Kdwards submitted that the application must be diainiured with co'ts. His Honor eaid the matter would Btard over, to enable authorities to be cited. If Dr Fostof proved that he had a right to make thi* motion, thon the bill would be dismissed, and Mr I'd wards would have to pay the coats, otherwise Dr. Foster would have to p*y the costs of that application, whioh would be dismissed. The Court roao at 5.20 p.m.