SUPREME COURT.—BANCO SITTING.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXX, Issue 4451, 25 June 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.—BANCO SITTING.

Thursday, June 24. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) His Honor took his seat on the bench at 11 o'clock. YOUNG V. THOMSON. His Honor delivered judgment in this, case, which was an appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court, Wellington, in an action for the recovery of tolls, Thomson being the keeper of the Kaiwarra tollgate. Having dwelt briefly upon the points raised during the argument, his Honor decided against the appellant Young upon all the points raised, holding that the General Tollgates Act did apply to the Kaiwarra tollgate ; that specific demand was not necessary to the creation of the debt ; that the debt was created by passing through the tollgate ; and that an action would lie for a debt so created. The appeal was therefore dismissed with costs. KRULL V. KNIGHT. This case, as reported in the proceedings of the last Banco Sitting, was an argument or demurrer to one of defendant's pleas in an action on a promissory note, the plea being to the effect that there was no consideration, and that the note was given to retire another's note. His Honor held the plea to be bad, on the ground that if the promissory note was retired by the acceptor it must be considered to be withdrawn altogether. The demurrer was therefore allowed. RANGITIKEI HIGHWAY BOARD V. MAUNDER. In this case the declaration was demurred to on the ground that it was not sufficiently specific. Mr. Travers appeared to support the deimrrrer, which was allowed. WALKER V. THE GIUSYTOWN LOCAL BOARD. This case was set down for judgment, and his Honor gave it as his opinion that it was concluded by the case of Hawke v. Fretliey, which was argued before the Court of Appeal, and that it was therefore too late to open the question whether or not proceedings should have been taken by quo warranto. There was one point not argued before the Court of Appeal, which, however, appeared to be admitted or taken for granted, namely, that the election was invalid. As it had not been argued, he wished to know whether it was to be taken as having been admitted or was still to be argued. Mr. Allan said he believed the point had been admitted by Mr. Izard. At any rate, the point was not raised during the argument. Had it been raised he was prepared at the time with authorities to meet it. Mr. Izard said his learned friend was quite wrong in his impression, as he did not admit the 2>oint. His Honor asked for,.the court copy of the case. ' r yi """-- The Registrar replied that it was uot the practice to keep records of the Court of Appeal cases, and no record of Hawke •v. Frethey was therefore at hand. Mr. Travers said it would be very desirable to keep a record of all cases heard in the Court of Appeal. His Honor was at a loss to understand why the rule had not been observed hitherto. Each of the Judges received what purported to be a copy of the case, and there surely must exist something of which these were copies. The copy su2)plied to him in Hawke v. Frethey he had given to his Honor Mr. J ustice Johnston. The case was ordered to stand over to give time to counsel to produce their copies of the case. IN RE JAS. BEEGER.. Mr. Travers, on behalf of Mr. Moorhouse, applied that this case might be allowed to stand over, as the latter gentleman had only returned to Wellington from Picton that morning, and was not therefore prepared to go on with the case. . . Ordered to stand over. : OAKES V. STRACHAN. On the application of Mr. Travers, this case was set down for next day. Several merely formal motions ■ were dealt with, and the Court adjourned till next day.