SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

Kumara Times, Issue 3082, 18 September 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT, HOKITIKA.

[from our own correspondent.] CIVIL JURISDICTION. [Before His Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.] Wednesday, September 16, G. W. MOSS V. SARAH DIXON. —APPEAL CASE. Mr Jones for appellant, and Mr M. Hannan for respondent. This was an appeal from a decision of Major Keddell, Resident Magistrate of the Greymouth Judicial District, given in the case of G. W. Moss, legal Manager of the Golden Fleece Gold Mining Company at Reefton, against Sarah Dixon, for the recovery of calls made. It was contended that the call was made illegally, on the ground of the directory of the company not being properly constituted. The Resident Magistrate at Greymouth upheld this view, and gave judgment for Sarah Dixon. Against this decision an appeal was lodged, and the present suit was brought to bring the question to an issue.

Mr Jones at great length stated his case, maintaining that the directory was legally constituted, and therefore enabled to strike the call.

Mr Hannan, on the other hand, essayed to prove that the rules of the company had not been complied with, and that consequently the directors could not legally strike the call.

There were some interesting law points involved in this case, which were argued at very great length. His Honor .finally stated that he would have to look up authorities before giving his decision, and he would therefore send in his decision after his return to Wellington. The Court, at 6.20 p.m., adjourned till 7.30 o’clock.

PATERSON, MICHEL, AND CO., V. THE ESTATE OF THE LATE MARY HALLIGAN.

Mr Lewis appeared for the plaintiffs; there was no appearance of counsel for defendant.

Mr Purkiss stated that Mary Halligan died a short time ago, and that previous to her death be was invited to visit her at the hospital, but that he found her in a dying condition, and could therefore not consult her.

This is an action on the part of plaintiffs to be appointed administrators in the estate of deceased.

His Honour, after argument, granted the decree.

The Court adjourned at 8.50 p.m, till Thursday morning.

Thursday, September 16. His Honour took his seat on the Bench at 10 a.m. CULLEN V. CHESNEY. This is an action to take the accounts in the partnership of the two parties concerning the vessel “ Zephyr,” and applying for a decree to have the partnership dissolved, and a receiver and manager appointed. Mr Guinness for plaintiff; Mr Lewis for defendant.

Counsel agreed that the Hon. J. A. Bonar be appointed receiver and manager, and that the Registrar of the Supreme Court, in conjunction with Mr W. A. Spence as accountants to take the accounts.

His Honour ordered that a decree be issued to that effect. APPEAL CASE.

INANGAHUA COUNTY COUNCIL, APPEL LANTS V. OVEUKND, RESPONDENT.

Mr Purkiss for appellants and Mr Jones for respondent.

This is an appeal adjourned from the last silting of the Supreme Court from a decision of Mr Bird, R.M. of the NeU so }\ South-West Judicial District, in which the Resident Magistrate of the Court below gave judgment for £5 and costa for damage done hy the Inangahua River to respondent’s land. It was proved that the appellants constructed a wall across the river in order to protect a waier-race of the Keep it-Dark Quartz Gold Mining Company, and in consequence of such wall, the waters of the above-mentioned River was thrown on to respondent’s lands and caused thereby the said damage of j£s. The appellants’ counseL contended that the work was dons for the common and public benefit, and that it was the duty of the respondent to protect his own property; and, further, that if a remedy were open to him at all, it was hr way of the Public Works Act of 1882, for compensation. Mr Jones for respondent replied at great length, contending that when the County Council constructed this wall, they must have known that it would throw water in flood time on tespondent’s land and thereby injure it; and, further, that they should have erected the wall on both sides of the river, and that therefore the Inangabna County Council was guilty of neeligence. 6

His Honour said that negligence bad been established, and that he must therefore dismiss the appeal with costs. The Court then adjourned sine die.