SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2213, 30 March 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Tuesday, March 29. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in the Court Chambers at 10.30 a.m. BE CHAS. S M'COBMICK, DECEASED._ Mr Cotterill applied for letters of administration herein to the mother of the deceased, Jane M'Cormick. His Honor made the order as prayed. EE THOMAS ROWE. Mr Cotterill, for Mr Slater, applied for the discharge of the debtor. His Honor granted tbs discharge. ASHTON AND ANOTHER V GRUBB AND OTHERS. Mr Bruges applied herein for examination of the defendants before the Registrar as to the accounts in the suit. His Honor made the order. BE HENRY SELBY AUSTIN. By consent herein his Honor made an order for taxation of costs. TROT V BEDINOTON. Mr Button, on behalf of plaintiff, applied herein for leave to enter up judgment for possession of land on account of abandonment by defendant. His Honor made an eider of judgment for plaintiff for posset sion and costs, execution three days after entering up judgment. EX PARTE H. C. YOUNG. Mr Spackman asked heroin for an order for taxation of costs. Mr Joynt applied for leave to include items of costa incurred since rendering the bill now sought to be taxed. His Honor made an order that the second bill be completed within fourteen days, both bills then to be taxed together. EX PARTE EOBT. CLEAVE. Mr McConnel applied herein for a rule nisi calling upon Messrs. Macussey, Kettle, and Bridges to show cause why their costs in the cause of Cleave v King should not be taxed. His Honor granted a rule nisi as prayed. Rule returnable on Monday, April 25tb, in latice, BE OHIOA KATUKO, DECEASED. Mr Joynt applied berain for probate to the executor and executrix of the deceased, who was a Maori. His Honor granted the application. JOHNSTON V MCANULTY. Mr Harper renewed his application herein for an injunction to restrain Mr Mendelson from dealing with the proceeds of tho crops herein. There were five very strong affidavits filed, which showed that the partnership which had been denied existed. Besides, they had a statement of accounts of half share. The injunction he would apply for was only an ex parte one, and a motion to dissolve could be made by the other side. However, he would take another opportunity of mentioning the case to his Honor. IN BANCO. HARPER V HOBLER. Mr Joynt announced that this case, which was an application for an injunction, had been settled. His Honor was glad to hear it. M'LEISH V MEEK. In this case His Honor made an order dismissing the appeal with coats, tho appellant not appearing. WOODING V HOLE. Mr Garrick, with him Mr Holmes, appeared to show cause to a rule calling npon the defendant to show cause why the verdict should not bo set aside and a new trial granted, on the grounds that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, and that the findings of the jury were so defective that the Court could not give judgment upon them. Mr Joynt in support of the rule and for the defendant. Mr Garrick at some length argned that the rule must bo discharged, and quoted several authorities in support of his contention. Mr Joynt replied at some length, and contended that the rule should be made absolute. At the close of a very exhaustive argument by Mr Joynt, His Honor took time to consider. FORD V LINDESAY. This case, which was an application by Dr. Foster for plaintiff to discharge his bill and for defendant to pay costs, stood over for Dr. Foster to produce authorities that the Court had power to make such an order. Dr. Foster cited tho following cases in support Cook v Jackson, 6 Vesey, 41 ; Lewis v Loxbam, 3 Monrulo. 30; Nicholas v Wordsworth, 2 Swanster; “ Vendors and Purchasers,” by Lord St. Leonards ; Ling v Beaver. T. & 8., 63; Wyudham v Graham, 1 Russell, 331. His Honor pointed out that none of the cases cited by Dr. Foster came near to the case under discussion. The whole practice of the Courts at home was entirely opposed to tho granting of such an order as Dr. Foster now asked for. Dr. Foster would then ask whether his Honor would give him the costs on the issues which had been found in his favour, a course for which he had authority. [Case cited, Provost v Bonnet. J Mr Stanley Edwards, contra, submitted that the motion was entirely irregular and opposed to tho rules of tho Court. [Rules cited 404-5.] He submitted that tho motion was entirely contrary to the rules of tho Court, and should be oismissed on tho ground of irregularity. His Honor asked Dr. Foster if ho had any authority for an application by plaintiff to dismiss his own bill. Dr. Foster cited the case of Lister v Leaf, 26 L.J., Chancery. His Honor thought tho application mado by Dr. Foster was premature. No authority had been shown to give tho Court power to give costs against the defendant on a motion to di?. miss his own bill. Ho was of opinion that tin application was irregnlsr. There would be ro order in this motioii at all, the bill would not bo dismissed as requested, and Dr. Foster having been unsuccessful he would have to pay tho costs. JOHNSTON V MCANULTY. Mr George Harper applied again herein for an injunction restraining tho defendant from dealing with the produce of certain land at Orari until the decision of an action now pending between the parlies for a half-share of tha profits of the produce. The defendant now denied that any partnership existed between him and the deceased husband of the plaintiff. Mr Harper now read five affidavits as to tho existence of a partnership with the late husband of the plaintiff. Bis Honor granted an interim injunction exparte to the defendant and his agents to restrain them from dealing with the produce of tho laud.