DISTRICT COURT.—March 13.

Mount Ida Chronicle, Volume III, Issue 158, 15 March 1872, Page 5

DISTRICT COURT.—March 13.

(Before His Honor Wilson Gray.)

Upon the case Duffy v. Connolly'being called on, Mr. Smytliies asked if he could be admitted to appear as a barrister or solicitor of the Supreme Court, as he was engaged in several important cases before the.Court. His Honor said that he had received an application from Mr. Smythies in this matter in Duneilin, and had made extracts from authorities quoted by Mr. Smythies in support of his application. Mr. Smythieo said he was quite willing to take his Honor'* opinion in the matter. A simple aye or nay was all he required, and he was quite willing to abide bv it without any intention of appeal. "His great desire was to prove to the world that, under the unfortunate (to say the least of them) circumstances in which he had been for the last four years placed, he had done his utmost to earn an honest and respectable livelihood for himself and family. His Honor cited numerous cases in reference to the matter, and considered Mr. Smythies et topped, the Judge's order being tantamount to his suspension from act ing as Attorney of the Supreme Court. Application refused, Mr. Smythies being, allowed to act as an agent under special circumstances such as the present.

Duffy v. Connolly and "Ross.—Mr. Smythies for plaintiff, Mr. Rowlatt for defendants. This was a claim as trustee in the insolvent estate of one William Mardling, whose effects were sold contrary to a restraining order from the Supreme Court. A general denial was pleaded. It appeared, however, that some few months back Ross, one of the defendants, had obtained a judgment against Mardling in the Besident Magistrate's Court, Macraes, for the sum of £ls, and that immediately thereupon, he took out an execution against the effects of the said Mardling. Previously, however, to the sale by the bailifi, an ordeivof restraint from the

Supreme Court was served both upon Boss and the bailiff, notwithstanding which the sale of the goods was effected by the bailiff, he holding an indemnity from Boss from loss. The action was brought on behalf of the trustee in the estat3 to recover damages for goods sold against an order of the Supreme Court to restrain such sale, and the evidence adduced proved not only that the goods were sold to Ross, but that they were sold much under value. Judgment for the plaintiff, amount reserved ;£7 cdsts v In, re Connolly his Honor ga\ e' a nonsuit, allowing .£% . 10s. 6d. travelling expenses to the defendant—the same to be placed as a set-off as against costs in the previous cause.

In Insolvency. Peter Farquhar Colledge. Final hearing. Mr. Bowlatt appeared in support of the bankrupt. Mr. Smythies opposed. Upon the statement being submitted to his Honor he declined to accept the same, as not complying with the Bankruptcy Act, rule 119. Adjourned to next sitting, two months hence. Amended and properly verified accounts to be produced. Frederick Tootell. Final hearing. —Mr. Bowlatt for the bankrupt. Mr. Wilson, supervisor, appeared for the Trustee. An acceptance of trusteeship aurf report under the Bankruptcy Act not having been sent in y the case was adjourned till this day (Friday).

Thursday, Maech 14. " : - Mosan v. Chinese.—This was a case stated for the opinion of the District Court. The question raised was— Whether a claim imperfectly marked was or was not a claim within the meaning of the Goldfields Kules and .Regulations ? This question arose out of a case, heard before Mr. Warden Robinson at Serpentine a - ; short: time since, in which the plaintiffs sued feridants for encroaching upon an area applied for by them, imperfectly marked /out, but not absolutely granted. The visited the ground, and decided tljat the area, not being, properly miarked, there was virtually no claim, jarid there could, therefore, be no eni.crbjj.ehment. The Court confirmed the garden's judgment, il Appeal—M'Grrath ,y. Gogarty and Greer.—After a lengthened opinion the Judge decided that he had no jurisdiction. Costs, £1 35.; expenses to Greer, £llos.

; Emma Barber (administratrix in the estate of Edward Barber deceased, intestate) v. William Edmonds.n-This was a claim for goods sold and delivered. The defence was payment, set-; off, and denial, together with a claini for the excess of the set-off. The plaintiff abandoned the disputed items, and, after hearing the evidence on both sides, the Court gave judgment for the defendant for £42 ils. 6d., each party to pay their own costs. Mr. Smythies represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Rowlatt appeared fer the defendant.

The remainder of the District Court proceedings will appear in our next issue.