SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5406, 25 July 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT —IN BANCO.

Wednesday, July 24. t (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) t JONES V. ASHTON. On the application of Mr. Chapman (Mr. Travers consenting), this case (a ; .rnle nhsi returnable) was adjourned for a month. KAWATINI V. KINROSS. The Attorney-General, who appeared as counsel for the plaintiff in two cases, said there was an important point raised in the interpretation of the Native Lands Act, and it was impossible to get through the cases that day. He understood that Mr. Connolly was on the other side. His Honor, by request, adjourned the cases in which Kawatioi is plaintiff until Wednesday next. HOROMONA V. DROWBR. This case was struck out, as being improperly set down on the day’s list. MCDONALD V. KING AND ANOTHER AND TUCKER V; KING AND ANOTHER. On the application of Mr. Izard these cases were adjourned until Wednesday next. HAIR V. THE MAYOR AND CORPORATION OF WANGANUI. On the application of Mr. Travers the injunction granted on the. 7th April, 1877, was made perpetual, and the defendants ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs of this action. DRURY V. REVELL. This case (a motion to quash the conviction) was adjourned until Wednesday next. • GILLON V. MACDONALD. ? Mr. Barton made a motion, for a decree to have this case placed on the list, and was proceeding to read affidavits‘in-support, when Mr. Ollivier took the preliminary objection that the 498th rule was an insuperable barrier in the way, if he was right in assuming that his learned friend was now renewing a motion which had previously been decided against him. It was clearly on a defect in his affidavit that Mr. Barton was unable to succeed with his former motion. . His Honor was clearly of opinion that rule .498 did not apply. The rule nisi was refused, but Mr. Barton, by that decision, was in fact invited to move as he was now doing. - 5 ■ Mr. Barton then proceeded to read the affidavits in support of his motion, • and i lie submitted that the case ought not to have been struck out, and that it would be unreasonable not to restore it to the list. - Mr. Ollivier, in showing cause against the application, submitted - that no satisfactory statement whatever-had been adduced that the couse was not in the list. Everything showed clearly that the cause was in the list, whether rightly or wrongly. If his. learned, friend wanted a postponement, he should have lodged a prcccipe with the Registrar, 1 requesting the withdrawal of the case until some other time more suitable to his convenience ; but this was not done, and the Court intimated that the case would be taken on a certain day, He (Mr. Ollivier) was not dominua litis in this matter. The defendant was put to the inconvenience and expense of appearing on the day fixed by the Court for the case to come on. r * • His Honor : As the matter stands, I'must confess I have no doubt whatever as to the course I should take. There being no contra-diction-of the arrangement which took place between the parties, that this matter should stand over as long as it suited the convenience of Mr. Barton, —under these circumstances, in my opinion, the counsel for the defendant ought not to have applied for costs. I don’t say that he should not have applied to have the case struck out, because that would have been carrying out the arrangement that was entered into; but he ought not to have-ap-plied to have it struck out with costs. : That, iu my opinion, was contrary to the arrangement made, and I must accede to the present application and rescind the order now complained of by Mr. Barton. -Mr. Barton: I will ask your Honor to do so with costs. . . . r-. •: His Honor : Yes, X think I must do so. . - Mr. Ollivier said that costs were not applied for in the notice, and wished to have the question of costs allowed to stand over. Mr. Barton insisted on his application, for costs, and his Honor made an order , accordingly. ; ' ", DOHERTY V. THE WELLINGTON EDUCATION BOARD. • In this case the defendants were to apply for a rule calling on the plaintiff to show cause why the verdict for the plaintiff iu the above action should not be set aside and entered for the defendants, on the ground that'the Judge should have directed the jury that the facts proved or admitted amounted to gross misbehavior within the statute, and also pn the ground that the Board were the sole judges of what was sufficient gross misbehavior : to warrant the peremptory dismissal ,of the plaintiff. . • Mr. Allah, for the said there did not appear any probabiUty of the case being brought on that day, and he would therefore ask that it might be postponed until Wednesday nest, Mr. Barton said that it would depend on the result of the, motion for a; rule nisi whether he should.move for a cross rule. Therefore he wished it to be understood that if the motion for a rule were postponed till Wednesday, his right also to move for a cross rule should stand good on that occasion. After some discussion, his Honor said that time would be given to both . parties until Wednesday next . . Mr. Allan said he thought it was only right that the subject in the meantime should not be made public or commented on. Mr. Barton said he never heard of such a thing, or such an attempt to interfere with the freedom of the Press. The Court was public, and open to everybody. His Honor said that of course the objectio n was that matters should not be commented oh while they were pendente lite. The public assumed that the matter was closed by the verdict of the jury. The case stands till Wednesday next/ BUCKUIDGB V. WARDELL. This case (rule nm) stands adjourned till Wednesday next. GILLON V. MACDONALD. • Mr. Barton moved for a decree iu this case, stating in support that at the second, trial a verdict was given for the plaintiff, and that verdict had hot been impeached by the defendant, and was unimpeachable. * ’ After hearing Mr* Barton and Mr. Ollivier at considerable 'length, his Honor reserved judgment. : The Court then rose.