SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5412, 1 August 1878, Page 2

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Wednesday, July 31. (Before his Honor Mr. Justice Richmond.) TUCKER V. KINO AND ANOTHER, MCDONALD V.

Mr. Izard asked leave of the Court to have the above cases postponed for a fortnight, to suit the convenience of the Attorney-General, who was engaged in them, bub was unable to proceed with them to-day. His Honor immediately granted the application, aud the cases were postponed accordingly. BUCKBRIDGE V. WARDELL. ' Mr. Izard moved for a rule nisi for a now trial, oni the ground of misdirection by the Court, aud that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The action was tried at the last civil sittings of the Supreme Court, to recover possession of an acre of land at Featherston, and resulted in a verdict for plaintiff. After hearing Mr. Izard's argument on the other aide, the Court granted a rule, returnable in a fortnight. DOHERTY V. WELLINGTON BOARD OP EDUCATION. Mr. Gordon Allan moved in pursuance of leave reserved at the trial to set aside the verdict, and enter it for the defendants, on the ground of misdirection—that the Judge ought to have told the jury that the facts proved or admitted at the trial amounted to “ gross misbehavior” within the - statute, aud that the Board were the sole judges as to what was such “ gross misbehavior” aa to warrant them in dismissing the defendant. Mr. Barton, who appeared for Mr. Doherty, moved on behalf of his client for a cross rule for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection by tho Judge in withdrawing from the jury counts, relating to alleged libel and contract. The learned counsel stated that he should not proceed with this case if his client succeeded in the other. The Court granted a rule on the ground of misdirection as to the question of contract between the parties in reference to house allowance. BOTHAMLET T. BALLANTINE. Mr. Hutchison, on behalf of the defendant, moved to dismiss the action on the ground of non-prosecution of the suit on the part of tho plaintiff. The Court directed that a day should be appointed for the settlement of the issues within a month, otherwise the notion to stand dismissed. The costs of this application to be costs in the cause. NATIVE CASES POSTPONED. Mr. Bell said Mr. J. N. Wilson, of Napier, and Mr. Conolly, of Pioton, were engaged in the following cases, and asked that they might be postponed fur a week, which application was granted : Kawatiniv. Kinross, demurrer. Te Ringanolm v. Sutton, demurrer. Xakiki v. Kinross, demurrer. Kapo v. Same, demurrer, Ikahika v. Same, demurrer. Te Hapuku vl Same, demurrer. Kawatlni v. Sutton, demurrer. ARROW V. HARDING (OP HAWSES BAY). On the application of Mr. Edwards the hearing of this case was postponed until a future sitting day. PEACOCK V. ANDERSON. This was an appeal from' the decision of the E.M. Court at Wanganui. Mr) Hutchison and Mr. Chapman appeared for the respective parties.

The action was brought in the Court below for £SO, the value of goods, aud for their detention.

The plaintiff, it appeared, loft the goods at defendant’s house, and subsequently demanded the return of them, which was refused on the ground that the plaintiff was. not entitled to them, as he had made a deed of arrangement with his creditors by which the goods in question became the property of the trustee in the estate. The defendant also claimed to be entitled to set off a bill of exchange given by the plaintiff for £7l, the excess of which over £SO was abandoned so as to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of tho Court. It was also alleged that plaintiff, on various occasions subsequent to tho deed, had promised to pay tho bill. The Eesident Magistrate held that the debt was discharged by the deed, and was not revived by subsequent promise, and gave judgment accordingly. Against this judgment tho plaintiff now appealed. The Court took time to consider its judgment on the various points'raised.