SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1287, 13 September 1872, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Tuesday, Sept. 10. (Before His Honor J ud ge Gresson . ) ! JOHNSTON V. RfIVELL AND KEATING. — Mr Guinness applied to his Honor for a rule nisi, calling upon Mr Revell and John Keating, Inspector of Nuisances, to show cause why he refused to state a case for the opinion of the Supreme Court, pursuant to part 1 of -the Appeals from Justices Act, 1867. On the 27th August last, James Johnston was summoned for unlawfully keeping 11 pigs within the town of Greymouth, and outside the boundarien prescribed by the Municipal Bye-laws of Greymouth. Mr Guinness urged that the limits and boundaries were not properly defined ; that the map or plan produced at the hearing was prepared 14, mouths

after the passing of the bye-law, and was therefore inoperative in law ; and, taking it at the best, the Magistrate had no authority or power to order the removal of the swine from the premises of Johnston. His Honor was of opinion that the affidavit of Mr Johnston and Mr Warner showed ample grounds why a rule should be issued, and, without [expressing any opinion, he was happytq say that it was very rarely indeed that' a Magistrate declined to state a case, but he would grant the "rule nisi, returnable on Monday next. M'Caktby and Co. y. Hill and Hampton.— On the application of Mr Button this case was sent back for correction to Mr W. H. Revell, 8.M. ; counsel and Judge : agreeing, that in its present form it was impbsrible to argue upon the case as stated. His Honor gave Bpecial directions as to the manner in which the • case should be stated. The original draft as prepared by Mr Guinness was then .submitted, and his Honor was of opinion that the draft case would have met all requirements, aa that Court had to decide' L purely upon points of law and not matters of fact. . : r Dimant v. M'Ennis. — This was an appeal from a decision of the Resident Magistrate at Ross on a conviction of the' appellant, j>n auctioneer, for selling spirits otherwise than at public auction. The ground of appeal was, we believe, that tho appellant was not proved to ha-ve_sold the spirits, and did not in fact sell them. On his Honor taking his seat, he said he had looked through the Act and he found that he had no jurisdiction, the appeal had been brought before the wrong Court j'it should have gone to the District Court. It was mentioned by counsel for the appellant that that was ihe fault of the Resident Magistrate, who had insisted upon directing the appeal to the Supreme Court. His Honor said that it; was the business of the appellant to see that his appeal was brought before the Court competent to deal with it, and what the Magistrate chose to do have no weight in following what was plainly the course indicated by the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court was adjourned. ■•-, ■ ; ,;