SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2242, 9 June 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor sat in Chambers on Wednesday at 10 a.m. be claim: op henry lough. In this case Mr Harper obtained an order fixing the time and place of holding a Com. pensation Court at Christchurch for tho 21st of June. EE JOHN WALTBHB, DECEASED. Mr Harper applied for probate herein to W. A. Benn and Thos. McNaught, as executors named. - ■ His Honor made the order. dibchabgbb. Orders of discharge were made as follows— Re D, O’Sullivan, Peter Duncan, Andrew Bowman, and James Hunter (Mr Holmes), E. Revell (in person), Bryan Connell (Mr McOonnel), M. A. Postan (Mr Harper), James Stratton (Mr Spaokman). EE DEED OP ASSIGNMENT OP BUNKEE AND SON. Mr Nalder applied for an order declaring the deed completely executed. His Honor made the order, EE SAMSON CEOWTHEB, DECEASED. Mr Harper applied herein for probate to Sarah Orowther, as executrix. His Honor made the order. UNION BANK OP AUSTEALIA V CHESNEY. In this case, which was a return to a summons, hie Honor made an order dismissing the summons, Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Joynt for defendant. BE APPLICATION OP B. G. BEID. On the motion of Mr Garrick His Honor made an order appointing Mr R. G. Beid a Commissioner of the Supreme Court. BE OEOBOE MARTIN, DECEASED. On the application of Mr Geo. Harper probate herein was granted to Andrew Martin as executor named. EE DEED OP ASSIGNMENT OF H. C. YOUNG. Mr Spaokman applied herein for an order declaring a deed of assignment, Young to E. Beece, completely executed. His Honor made the order as prayed. EE JAMBS ASHWORTH, DECEASED. On the motion of Mr Button His Honor made an order granting probate to Elizabeth Ashworth and W. Me Adam. BE CHARLES GOUGH, DECEASED. Mr G. Harper applied herein for probate to James Gough, His Honor made the order, STUBBS T CHINNBEY. Xhe issues here were settled, and the trial fixed for July 15th, at Christchurch, Mr Joynt for plaintiff, Mr G. Harper for defendant, TEUBXEE OF JOHN PEAZEE AND OTHEEB V EBOWNE V BEAUMONT. The issues in this case wore settled, and the trial fixed for July 13 th at Christchurch. EE FEANK MATHIAS, DECEASED. On Mr G. Harper’s application His Honor ais3e an qrfier granting probate to Henry John Mathias, UNION BANE OP AUSTEALIA V CHESNEY. In this case Mr Harper obtained an order entering up judgment herein, BE JAMES TAAPE, DECEASED. Mr Joynt applied herein for letters of administration to Hannah Taafc, the widow of deceased. His Honor made the order as prayed. BE 8. E. GILLINGHAM, DECEASED. In this case Mr Joynt obtained letters cf administration to Emily Louisa Gillingham. APPLICATIONS POE PEOBATB, On the motion of Mr Salter, his Honor granted probate as under: —Be Ellenton Mitchell, deceased, to M. A. Mitchell; re J. B, Richardson, deceased, to M. A. Richardson ; re T. B. Jones, deceased, to W. B. Scott and O. Salter. BANK OP NEW SOUTH WALES V CAMPBELL. On the application of Mr Garrick, and by consent of Mr George Harper, judgment was entered up for possession of the land, and the trial of other matters in tho cause fixed for 11th July by common jury. IN BANCO. TEAVEE3 (APPELLANT) T B. W. MILLET! (bbbpondent). This was a case on appeal from the judgment of the Resident Magistrate at Christchurch. The appellant was sued in the Court below by the respondent as executor of James Gilligan, deceased, for £76 12s 6d, and judgment was given for the respondent. The respondent then brought an action against the appellant on the judgment, the execution against the goods of the testator having been returned nulla bona. The question was whether tho judgment in the first action was conclusive evidence of assets, and whether the return of the nulla bona by the bailiff was evidence of devastavit. The respondent now sought to recover from the goods of the appellant the amount of the judgment on the grounds—(l) That the previous judgment was evidence of assets, and (2) that the return of the nulla bona was evidence of devastavit.

Mr Travers appeared in support of the appeal. Mr Izard, with him Mr W. P. Beeves, for the respondent. Mr Travers proceeded to argue the ease at some length, and in the coarse of hie argument quoted E.M, Act, 1867, secs. 26 and 50, and pointed ont that in the second hearing the evidence given to show that there was no devastavit could not be taken, the magistrate holding that the prior judgment and return to the execution barred this being done. He contended that the first judgment did not go far enough. It should have given judgment for the amount as against the executor for what assets of the testator were in his hands, snd failing this, of the goods of the executor himself, If this had been done, then the judgment would be complete, as it would have been evidence that assets had been proved ; but the judgment stopped short of that. Mr Izard replied, contending that it must he taken that evidence had been given in the Court below of assets, because it was cast upon the plaintiff to prove that there wore assets before the judgment could be given. After further argument, his Honor took time to consider.