SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2704, 7 December 1882, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CHRISTCHURCH. SITTINGS IN BANCO. THIS DAY. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.) His Honor sat in banco at 11 a.m. EDB V HAY. This was a demurrer by the defendant to the plaintiff’s declaration. Mr G. Harper appeared herein against the demurrer and in support of thedeclara"tion. There was no appearance in support of the demurrer. In answer to His Honor, Mr Joynt said he was no longer counsel for the defendant. Mr Harper said that in this case, there being no appearance for the defendant in support of the demurrer, judgment must go for plaintiff, without entering into the merits of the case. [Case cited. Turner v Sampson Weekly Notes IGS Q.B. Div.] On the authority of this case, he would ask that the demurrer be overruled.

I trdor as prayed, demurrer overruled by default. JONAS AND ANOTHER V JONES. In this ease, on the application of Mr Slater, with consent of Mr Harper, an adjournment was made till next sitting. PALMER V CHESNEY. On the application of Mr Harper, this case also stood over. CRIMINAL SITTINGS. His Honor said some slight mistake had occurred in the newspaper reports as to the fixing of the sessions under the new Act. It should have been stated that the criminal sittings would take place on the 17th. The Act not coming into force until the Ist of January time must bo given to summon the juries. The sittings would be neld in the same months as previously, but at present the Judges could not settle anything definitely. However, it was likely that a sitting in banco would be held prior to the criminal sittings.

THOMPSON (APPELLANT) V CLARKS (respondent), In this case Mr Spackman said he had received notice of the abandonment by the respondent of opposition to the appeal. He would therefore ask that the appeal be allowed. Order: Appeal allowed, with costs.

RE CL All! OP ROBERT WILKIN

Mr Joynt applied to his Honor as President of the Compensation Court under the Public'Works Act for an order fixing day hour and place for the purpose of completing the award herein. He would contend that the Court was still in existence and, not having performed its functions, there was an inherent power in the President to convene the Court. The fact was the Court had separated without doing the work it was called together to perform. Therefore the Court must be called together by some means to do what had been left unfinished. His Honor asked how Mr Joynt proposed the Court should act when convoked. Mr Joynt said that the Registrar would produce the bill of taxed costs, so as to see how much was to be inserted. His Honor did not think this could be done. The Court as compensation had no power to ask the Registrar to do this. Mr Joynt said then the Court could tax the items as they sat. His Honor said if he acceded to Mr Joynt’s request he would shut out Mr Harper from any redress. He thought it could not but be the duty of a person in his position to get that done by the Court which should be done, and he was anxious to give either party the opportunity of ootaining the opinion of another tribunal. ■ Mr Harper said he contended that the proper course for his learned friend to adopt was to move the Supreme Court to refer the award back to the Compensation Court. As to the inherent power in the president, he was only a unit in the Court. He was, however, quite willing to consent to any course which would bring the matter before the Pull Court if Mr Joint took out a rule nisi to call upon him to show cause why the award should not be referred back to the Compensation Court. This would open up all the questions.

Mr Joynt submitted that there was no need to do this. The Court was not functus officio until all the duties imposed on it were fulfilled. The COth section of the Act directed that the Court should include in its award the costs, and decide who should pay them. This was clearly mandatory, and yet the Coui't had not done what was necessary by fixing the respective costs to he paid by each party. The president had signed an award leaving these amounts blank.

His Honor said that the question arose in his mind whether it was competent for him to revive the Court again to complete the award.

Mr Joynt said that the three positions he took up were as follows:—(1) The Court was not functus officio, because it had not completed the work it had been convened to do ; (2) that the Court could complete any part of its award which had been left unfinished; and (3) that the Court had power to amend or correct its award where any portion of it had been omittedas in this case. [Cited sections 50, 51, 60, and 61 of the Public Works Act, 1876, as regarded the first point.] His Honor pointed out that he felt himself in a false position. In what capacity was he hearing these cases ? Mr Joynt—As the president of the Compensation Court. His Honor—But the Compensation Conrt is composed of three persons. The Court has been convoked and dispersed. The present was no tribunal at all. Mr Joynt contended that his Honor under the statute was the officer appointed to convoke the Court. The Court had separated without doing its work, and now he asked the president to convoke it again. His Honor said that there was no doubt a mistake had occurred, and had it been pointed out to him ho would not hav* signed it. Mr Joynt pointed out that it had been a custom to get his Honor to sign an award, leaving blanks for the costs, which were filled up afterwards. Perhaps it would be better for the case to stand over again. His Honor said he was very anxious to get the opinion of the highest legal tribunal as to the matter. The impression on his mind was that he must do something, and it would he as well to let the case stand over to see what arrangement could be made to set matters right. By consent of counsel on both sides the case stood over till next banco sitting.