SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2430, 19 January 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

SITTINGS IN CHAMBERS. Th:b Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] His Honor eat in the Court Chambers at 11 a.m. DISCHARGES. Orders of discharge were granted in the following cases :—Re H. W. Stevenson (Mr Oowlishaw), Henry Dalzsll (W. Slater), M. J. Boskruge (Mr Loughrey). probate, &o. Orders for probate were granted as under : —Be Cornelius Dark, deceased, to Edward Dark (Mr Harper) ; Be John McWilliams, decaaed, to Rebecca McWilliams and the executors named (Mr Slater) ; James Souter, deceased, to Mary Souter (Mr Loughrey for Mr Salter) ; re Samuel Stuckey, deceased, to Henry Overton (Mr Stringer) j re John O, Steele, deceased, to A. B. W. Parsons (Mr Joyce). Phaser's trustees v brown and OTHERS. In this case Mr Joynt appeared to apply for settlement of minutes of decree. Mr Oowlishaw concurred in the minutes of decree, the question of costs to stand over. His Honor made the order conferring the decree as submitted. WILSON AND OTHERS V GASKIN. Mr Stringer applied for a rule nisi calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why a judgment obtained by him against the defendant should not be sec aside. A summons had been issued to the defendant in the Court below calling upon him to appear on the 25th August, but the plaintiff attended on the 25th July, and, unknown to the defendant, obtained a judgment against him. The plaintiff proceeded to sell the property of the defendant under a distress warrant. His Honor said he could not see how the Supreme Court could interfere with the judgment of the Court below, except by way of prohibition or appeal. This was the only manner in which the Supreme Court could interfere with the judgment of the lower Court. Mr Stringer asked that the case might stand over to enable him to look up the authorities bearing upon it. The case stood over for production of authorities. IN BANCO. NATIONAL BANK V WARD. Mr George Harper applied herein for an adjournment of this case until after the vacation. His Honor granted the application. WILLIS V VINCENT AND CO. Mr Joynt for plaintiff; Mr Harper for Flanagan, one of the defendants ; Mr Button for the remainder of the defendants. This was a special case, stated by consent of the parlies raising a point of law reserved at the trial of the case at nisi prius before his Honor. The action was to recover possession of a certain hotel at Malvern, and also £250 as mesne profits. By some mistake an error occurred in the declaration of the description of property, the amount of land demised being incorrectly stated. The plaintiff desired to lead evidence to show that this error had occurred, and how it occurred, but the defendant took the objection that parol evidence of an error in a deed could not bo given at nisi prius. This was the point reserved for decision by his Honor in lance,

Mr Joynt lubmitted that thia was ft eass of latent ambiguity, created by parol evidence, and therefore it was competent to remove it by parol evidence. He also submitted that the defendants should have taken the objection in limine t prior to the evidence being allowed to bo got in as to the error. The plaintiff’s evidence had been taken by his Honor describing [the error, without Mr Harper objecting, fAuthorities cited Doe on demise of Freeland v Burt 1 Term Reports 701; Hutchins v Scott 2 M and W., 809; Way v Heavne 32 L. J, O.P. 34-39; Lyle v Richards, L.R. 1 English and Irish Appeals 222; Olay ton v Morrison 2 New Zealand Appeal Cases 263-3 [Left sitting.]