COURT OF APPEAL.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5346, 16 May 1878, Page 3

COURT OF APPEAL.

i , .■ Wednesday, .'May 15,... '(Before* their Honors,the Chief .Justice, Mr!l 'Justice*'Johnston, and,- Mr. Justice Williams.) i Ormond v. Paterekh te itirilicite, ‘Bartou v.' 'Allan, and other: cases werepostponed.eo that; they'might bo .taken by* the. Full. Court ou the -arrival; of .- Mr. . Justice Eichmond and Mr. "Justitfef Gillies, it.,.’ CALDEE.,;V. .DUFF, .(■,): J Motion .for, a of proceedings pending . an appeal to the Privy Council. , The ”AttQrnoy f Greneral appeared in support of the motion';-Mr. Izard'agaihst it. . =; • saiclthat'.unless there was a stay of 'proceedings tho plaintiff would -sell-the land,-the subject-matter of the suit, and ''th’eirmight ho non esl.l’U Aiil LI 1 • - 11 Judge.' Johnstoni;' The/land would ; not; bedestroyed;- 1 ' '* 1 • 1 ' i The Attorney-General: It might be ; sold. If the Privy Canned upset the decision of the COutt'bf App'ealj there j might ihe a remedy, but Dnff'was: not resident!™ theioolony. Tho Supreinb'C’ourfc . ;it Dunedin, held that they could not stay proceedings, that! they! had no jurisdiction, 1 , and he now camo to the forum where there was jurisdiction. ; ; . ! ! Judge'-* Williams :>You applied in jtho Supreme Couvfc/for a stay of proceedings. The Attorney-General : Yoa.- - * - The Chief 'Justice r Practically this wits an appeal from* the decision of Brother Williams.! VI The Attorney-General. said it could hardly be called that, because all;the Supreme Court decided was want of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court in Dunedin had only a ministerial duty, not’a judicial duty, and therefore, the Appellate Court was the proper one to apply to 1 in order to’ get-a'stay of proceedings in this Case. ,! The Chief Justice d.d not see! how the Court of Appeal had anything to do in the matter:‘it • was in the Supreme. Court. J The Attorney-General : The Supreme Court said it had nothing to do with: such a .matter. The. Chiefs Justice : .The Supreme Courtmight be wrong... This was ."a matter which .‘affected ’the; previous decisions of this Court. Was not Mr. Izard prepared to say that no steps would’be.'taken;until this motion had been disposed of ? or: ■ Tho Attorhey-General was prepared to agree to that. J ".v.'''’ !l “:iw;v ; ! ";! s " : •'

Judge John?ton considered it a matter et very considerable importance. ..If it was necessary, the ’ Supreme: Court -Act might be amended, or an Order! in Council issued.

■The;A.ttprney-<3euerakpointed. ( out that if both. Courts .sjvidjlihey had no"power to give ..leave to appeal it would simply mean that there would he no appeal whatever to the Privy Council. As to ordering a stay ed proceedings,’ even, the House of Lords, being an Appellate Court, might order a; stay of proceeding’s it they thought justice required it; ' J Mr; Justice Johnston : It would be legitimately seized of the .case. . The Attorney-General contended that if an appeal were pending against the decision’of the Appeal Court, it would still be seized of the matter! I- . " ■ Judge Johnsten : That’was just the difficulty. ' The moment the opinion of the Appeal • Court.was given the case left it altogether! It returned to the old forum below, aud was in I 'the *'same pbsitionas if the judgment pf the .Court of,Appeal had • originally been given in the Court below. ' - ' ~ Tim Attorney-General. : Tho decision of the Supreme Court was, that it had no’judicial : work to perform!,; jts duties were almost ! in the nature of a sheriff’s—ministerial '• ; —— Judge -Johnston : Possibly the-Judges were fwfong, and in that case their, decision should have been appealed against. However, it was very desirable 1 that'a matter of such importance; which probably might require the intervention of the Legislature, should be - argued before thp Full Court. ' Mr. Izard undertook that proceedings should be stayed for ten days, to permit this to be done. " : ’ CaSeladjourned.to Thursday, 23rd instant. The Court then adjourned.: ■