SUPREME COURT-IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5250, 21 January 1878, Page 3

SUPREME COURT-IN BANCO.

Saturday, January 19. (Before his Honor Chief Justice Prendergast.) WALLACE Y. CRAWFORD. On the Court assembling, Mr. J. H. Wa - lace, who was plaintiff in the case of Wallace v. Crawford, heard last week, asked if he might be permitted to address a few remarks to the Court ? , , , His Honor : Not unless you have some business before the Court; certainly not. If you have any business to address the Court about you can do so. • J Mr. Wallace : It is in reference to the case of Wallace v. Crawford. _ , . , His Honor ; That case is not on the list, is there no application ? Mr Wallace ; I want to move, if I may be permitted, that the Court grant me costs in that case. , His Honor : You must know well enough that in order to bring a case before the Court some proceedings must be taken to do so. It is quite out of the question that persons are to be allowed to address the Court umess in a proper way. Mr. Barton ; Will your Honor allow me, as amicus curia;, to mention to you what Mr. Wallace stated to me, viz., that his object in appearing .in Court is that he should not be required °to make his motion now, but that it should be deferred until the 24th iust. His Honor: The law requires that fees be paid beforehand. Mr. Barton said ha intended to move m another case without notice and without havin'l, paid fees. ■ The Supreme Court of New Zealand was open to the whole public at any moment. - - His Honor stated that before an application was made Court fees had ’ to be paid, and as a matter of right rules had been made by the Governor in Council to that effect. Mr. Barton said he was going to apply for a rule nisi without having first paid fees, and he submitted that he had a right to do so. Mr. Wallace signified his intention of giving notice and paying fees before making his_ application that the verdict in the case Wallace v. Crawford carry costs. His Honor : I do not see that the other side will be prejudiced, and I see no reason why you should not move on Thursday. JOSEPH V. PETERS. In the case of Joseph v. Peters Mr. Barton applied for a rule nisi for a new trial. He mentioned that he had given no notice to the Registrar, and had not paid any fees, but submitted that he was entitled to do so according to the rules of the Court. His Honor ; You have filed no notice of motion, and have paid no fee. There are therefore two objections. Your case is on no list, and you have paid no fee. Mr. Barton : The case need_ not be on the list. I am applying for a rule nisi. If the rules by which the fees are payable be made under the Stamp Act then they are ultra vires. Accordin'* to the Supreme Court Act Amendment Act 1862, section 17, all alterations in fees must he by rule of Court. Being a taxation Act, it must be strictly construed. His Honor : A fee is not a tax. Mr. Justice Richmond and myself have ordered that within this district no case shall be heard unless oa the list and the fee be pref! jlr. Barton : The Judges had no power to make such an order. The rules of Court and schedule of fees do not provide for rules msi, but only for cases set down. His Honor referred to section 21 of the Supreme Court Act, 1860. Mr. Barton : Surely the Judges have no power to make rules or directions oven within their own district by word of mouth. Such directions must be in writing. His Honor: Assuming there is no rule about list or fee, cau you be heard except by the leave of the Court ? Mr, Barton : The Bar ought to be called on in turn. . , , His Honor : That practice has been abandoned by all the Judges. I cannot hear you unless it is a matter of urgency. Mr. Barton: Then must we also pay the fee ? ' This is a matter of considerable importance, because iu every Government office they are charging what fees they like. I am speaking of the Registration of Deeds and several other offices. His Honor : I decline to hear the case until the fee is paid and the cause is on the list. Mr. Barton then agreed to pay the fee, and put the causa on the list. GILLON V. MACDONALD. After the Court had decided to hear an argument on demurrer in which Messrs. Connolly, Lee, and Bell were engaged, Mr. Barton asked that an application for an injunction in the case of Gillon v. Macdonald should take precedence. His Honor : Your opinion is that it can come on at any moment. Mr. Barton ; Your Honor must not say I am asking for any favor. His Honor ; Mr. Barton, hold your tongue while I speak to you. At the nisi prim sittings of the Court you arose during the crossexamination of a witness, and now you interfere during the hearing of a case in which you are not interested, to make another application. You see how eminently absurd that kind of proceeding ia. Mr. Barton ; Your Honor is entirely under a mistake, the application in Joseph v. Peters was not made by me during the hearing of a Ca His Honor ; It shows, Mr. Barton, that it is absolutely necessary that there should be some order of proceeding. Mr. Barton ; Then your Honor declines to hear my motion, though it is made on the ground of excessive urgency. I may mention that at the close of the case Gillon v. Macdonald the Court would not hear my motion, because his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond was fatigued. His Honor ; It is quite evident that the business of this Court can only be conducted by reliance on the part of the Judge in the discretion, good conduct, and good faith of the practitioners. If you say you are about to make an application for the hearing of a case out of its order on the ground of urgency, I think I am bound to hear it. Mr. Barton : If your Honor wont hear my case 1 had better sit down. His Honor : If I have any of your impertinence, I shall commit you. Mr. Barton : Your Honor can’t teach me my duty. His Honor ; I will suffer no impertinence from you. After some further argument, Mr. Barton explained that it had been decided by a jury that Mr. Gillon had a perfect rir/ht of access to the Evening Argus as a partner, and that in trying to assert his rights a fracas had occurred. The other proprietors would not allow him into the office, and as they had control of the books and monies, ho did not care to trust them. Ho therefore asked that his present motion should be beard,

because on the 24th of this month the Court ■ closed"for”fo'r6y'day's7 and during tlie recess it, was to be expected that motions would not be heard.--- Besides, they had a right to have the present motion heard where the Press and public-had entrance, as it had been decided by Parliament that they were allowed to bring public opinion to bear. . His Honor: We care nothing about the uewspapers or Parliament. Ido not see that there is any urgency, since the case has been pending for six or seven months. Your’s is only ,au ex parte statement, and the case had better come ou in its order. PATERIKE V. ORMOND. This was a demurrer to a declaration which alleged that the defendant had purchased the share of one Apera Pahoro in the well-known Heretanga Block in Hawke’s Bay, with notice of a trust which had been declared by Pahoro in favor of the plaintiff. The facts as stated iu the declaration showed that the plaintiff and Pahoro were members of the same hapu, which hapu was one of many interested in Heretanga. As only ten natives could by the Native Lands Act of 1865 be included in a Crown grant, Pahoro was selected by this hapu to be their representative, and after the issue of the grant, Pahoro executed and duly registered a formal declaration of trust in favor of the plaintiff and others. Subsequently Pahoro sold his share to the defendant, aud the plaintiff sought to have the conveyance to the defendant set aside on the ground that the defendant had full notice of the declaration of trust. The defendant demurred on several grounds, the principal objections being that the arrangement which was the foundation of the declaration of trust was void uuder the provisions of the Native Lands Act, 1865 ; also, that the alleged declaration of trust was valueless and too indefinite to be carried out, and that its registration gave the plaintiff no priority over defendant. Mr. Bell appeared in support of the declaration, aud Mr. Connolly (specially retained from Piotou), with Mr. Lee of Napier, appeared for the defendant iu support of the demurrer. The Court reserved judgment.