SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2222, 11 April 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS AT NISI PItIUS. Tniß Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnaton. j The Court opened at 11 a.m. CONTEMPT 03? COUBT. Mr Stringer appeared on behalf of Mr W. i Martin to show cause why he should not be fined for delay of depositions in the case of ' Begina v James Scott, he being clerk of the Court at Ashburton. Mr Stringer road an affidavit from Mr Nugent Wood, E.M., stating that ho was unable through press of business to sign the depositions for a week. His Honor said it seamed to him that if the Magistrate allowed a week to pass over without signing the depositions he was not fit to hold his position. If the Government had made ouch arrangements as would necessitate bo much work being put on the Magistrate, the Supreme Court should not allow this laxity to prevail. He might say that he was distinctly of opinion that the excuse made in the affidavit, though exculpating the clerk, did not do so as regarded the Magistrate himself. Had the summons to shew cause been directed to the Magistrate instead of the clerk, the excuse now made —which in his

mind was no excuse at all—rather aggravated the offence than otherwiae. Mr Stringer desired to point out that the clerk was not in any way inculpated. His Honor said that it seemed to him a monstrous thing that the magistrate should, on the mere plea that he2 had not time, allow the firßt day of the assize to go past without signing the depositions and seeing that they were regularly and promptly forwarded to the Supreme Court according to the statute. In England he Baid that the judges frequently had magistrates' clerks and magistrates up before them for similar laches, and in some cases a very substantial fine was imposed. It was time that the popular notion of this laxity as to dealing with depositions and matters having reference to the administration of justice was done away with. However, he trusted that this expression of opinion on the part of the Oourt would have due effect, and that notwithstanding tho pressure of business on any magistrate, he would find time to carry out the duties imposed upon him by statute. Mr Stringer said he desired to point out that Mr Mellish, the Magistrate of the Christchurch district, was inonpacitated from duty owing to illness, and Mr Wood, the gentleman making the affidavit, had to carry out tho duties both at Ashburton and Christchurch.

His Honor said he could not help that. It was the duty of the Magistrate to sign those depositions before he left the Oourt, so that they might be at ence transmitted to the Supreme Court. There was no doubt about this, that considerable laxity as to depositions was noticeable in connection with the Courts outside the centres of population. However, he trusted that what had been said would lead to a better state of things. He desired further to add this, that had the summons been issued to the Magistrate to show cause instead of the clerk, he should have felt it his duty, despite the affidavit, to have inflicted a substantial fine. The matter might now drop. Mr Stringer said there waß one point to which ho desired, as appearing for Mr Martin, to refer. His Honor, when ordering the summons to show cause to issue, had stated that there were considerable irregularities occurring in the conduct of business in the Ashburton Court. Now, Mr Martin had only just taken charge of the Court, and he could appeal to the Deputy Registrar whether the business done with the Ashburton Court, as regarded depositions, had not been conducted with regularity. His Honor said he had no recollection of having specially mentioned the Ashburton Court. What he referred to was the laxity prevailing in the conduot of business with regard to the outside Courts, and he did not j mention Ashburton specially. However, he say this, that he had noticed an improvement in the way the business was carried on lately with regard to the Ashburton Oourt, and ho trusted it would continue. The matter then dropped. TBUSTBES OF W. AWD B. BOBIKSON V W. BOBINSOIT AND OTHBBS. This case, in which Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for some of the defendants, was, after some discussion, referred by consent to the Registrar for settlement on the facts, any points of law arising to be argued hereafter. GABTCIN V. XINLBY. This was an action for reduction. Mr Stringer, instructed by Mr Joyce, for the plaintiff. Mr Joynt for defendant. Mr Joynt applied for an adjournment of the case until to-morrow, as he was instructed that a material lady witness in this case had been unfortunately obliged, through force of circumstances, to leave her lodgings for Addington for a period of three months. He should therefore have to apply to the Oourt for an order to produce her, and also that the case might stand over till next day to enable him to ascertain what evidence she had to give. Mr Stringer did not object if his learned friend paid the costs of the day. Mr Joynt having consented to this, the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-morrow.