SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIX, Issue 9969, 23 February 1893, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, Feb. 22. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) A. J. LAWRENCE V. THE SYDENHAM LICENSING COMMITTEE. Mr Stringer moved for a writ of certiorari to quash and remove the resolution of the Sydenham Licensing Committee, in regard to the issuing of a license in respect of the Club Hotel. He said the application was merely a formal one now resulting from the decision of the Court of Appeal. In answer to hia Honor, Mr Caygill said he had nothing to say. His Honor wished to understand that Mr Caygill concurred, and that one case governed the other. Mr Caygill said he did not raise any objection. The affidavits in this case were practically similar to the others. His Honor understood that after the decision in one case Mr Caygill did not oppose this one. Mr Caygill: “Just so, your Honor.” His Honor then granted the application, remarking that it was only a question of costs. Mr Stringer asked for full costs, viz., 20 guineas and disbursements. His Honor did not think he could grant full costs. The defence had been the same as in the other cases, and he thought the defendants should get the benefit of the case not being tried. Mr Caygill cited the canes of Round and others v. the Sydenham Boroup.h Council, in which full costs were not allowed u the second and subsequent cases where the decision in the one caso governed all the rest. Then £2C and disbursements had hpen allowed in the one-case, and in the

other cases the costs were two guineas each.

Mr Stringer pointed out that they had applied for a writ of mandamus in this case, though he admitted that the affidavits were the same in both.

His Honor did not think ho should add to the costs of the defendants in this case. In Lawrence’s case the proceedings had gone no further than was sufficient to start them, and it was understood that the decision in the one case should govern the other. There had been no writ of mandamus issued, therefore he should allow JE4 4a and disbursements, including the present application. [Pee Press Association.! NAPIER, Pee. 22. At tho Supreme Court the following sentences were passed :—John Rogers and Patrick Ryan, for larceny, nine mouths’ imprisonment; Harold Maitling, tor stealing money, released under probation ; Daniel O’Connor, breaking and entering, three months’ imprisonment; Edward Williamson, alias Biokoison, horse-steal-ing, eighteen months’ imprisonment j William Campbell, larceny as a bailee of a horse, twelve mouths’ imprisonment; Edward Dose, larceny as a bailee, eighteen months’ imprisonment; John Idle, theft of a cheque, twelve months’ imprisonment; Roderick M’Eenzie, a youth with a bad record, for theft, six months’ imprisonment. Thomas Henry Gale and Edward James Wells, two lads who pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, were released on probation for twelve months. All to-day was occupied in hairing a charge against John Clark of placing a rail across the railway line at Waipawa in October last.