SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5521, 6 December 1878, Page 5

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Thursday, December 5. (Before his Honor the Chief Justice.) The Court sat at 11 a.m. INANGAHUA -COUNTY COUNCIL V. GILLESPIE. This was an appeal from a decision of the Resident Magistrate at Eeefton, who, when the case was before him, decided that a written agreement or contract was not binding because both parties to it had not signed it, and that its contents could only be taken as ancillary evidence of tha agreement between the parties. Mr. Buckley appeared for appellant, and Mr. Travers for respondent. On argument it appeared the case was-de-fectively stated, and the Court ordered the casu s to- be sent back to the Resident Magistrate, to be'amended by annexing the contract and certain certificates to tho case, so as to distinctly raise tho question of law. HAWORTH V. MALFROT. Demurrer to plaintiff’s declaration.^ The declaration set forth that plaintiff, defendant, and others, being saw-millers on the West Coast, had entered into an agreement by which they had agreed to fix the producing price of certain Umbers at a certain sum, and the selling price at another sum, and further bound themselves that all moneys received by each or any of them in excess of the said selling price should be thrown into hotch-potch and divided amongst all. Plaintiff complained that defendants had received certain moneys in excess of the selling price agreed upon, but that they bad failed to produce accounts. Plaintiff prayed for relief as against the other members of the partnership. This was demurred to by defendant, and after argument upon the law hearing on the subject had been heard the Court took time to consider its judgment. VALENTINE V. DERJIOND. This was an appeal on a case stated by tho Resident Magistrate at Wellington, Mr. Crawford. Respondent, the plaintiff, sued appellant, defendant, for £29, for twenty-nine weeks' wages, as a servant at the rate of £1 per week. The appellant in his set-off, admitted by respondent, claimed for cash payments tobacco and spirituous liqnors supplied during the period of service an amount exceeding the amount claimed by the respondent. The spirituous liqnors were supplied in quantities not amounting in price at any one time to 205., and not exceeding altogether in any one week the sum of .*l. These items, if disallowed, would leave due to tha respondent from the appellant the sum of £l4. Judgment was given for the respondent for that amount. The main question was whether the appellant had a right to stop ont of plaintiff’s wages the money for drink: old to him. Certain delays and complications had arisen in connection with the stating of the case, and the manner in which it was stated, and after considerable discussion the matter was ordered to stand over till Monday. Mr. Bnckley appeared for appellant, and Mr. Ollivier for respondent. m'kellar v. stennott. Motion to quash a conviction. On the 24th September last Stennott was convicted before the Resident Magistrate at Wellington for a breach of section 163 of the Customs Regulations Act, 185 S, in transhipping from theßingarooma and evading duties on about lOOlbs. of tobacco. Stennott had been delivering meat on board, and had put this tobacco on his express wrapped up in sheepskins. A fine of £25 was inflicted. Mr. Ollivier moved on a rule nisi to quash this conviction on several techinal objections to the form of the conviction.

The Attorney-General appeared in support of the conviction.

After hearing argument on both sides. The Court reserved judgment. The Court then adjourned.