Supreme Count.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVI, Issue 55, 9 March 1904, Page 2

Supreme Count.

NEW PLYMOUTH,TUESDAY, MAKCII 8. Before, His Honor Mr Justice Kdwards. PUBLIC TKUSTEE v. W. HUMPH HI KS. His Honor delivered a *cry hjngihy judgment in this case, graining' (lie prayer of Hie Public Trustee, giving costs against defendant. 25 guineas, and disbursements. His Honor decreed that, the defendant Humphries had no estate or interest in Ihe lands as described save only as mortgagee under his mortgage, and that, the Public Trustee was owner :n fee simple of such lands, subject only to .such mortgage, and was entitled to redeem such lands upon payment, to (he defendant of what, it" anything, should be found to be due to defendaccounts must be taken and enquiries made, Air Kerr appeared for the Public Trustee, and Mr Myers, of Wellington, for Mr Humphries. IN BIYOHCE. lteale v. Beale.-Mr Wilson. for petitioner, asked for a decree nisi. The decree was grained, to he madij absolute in three mouths. Costs were granted against, the corespondent. CIVIL BUSINESS. FLEMING V. SPENCE.

Mr Jellicoe moved for a writ, of certiorari to remove the proceedings in this case from the Magistrate's Court to the Supreme Court. Mr Myers held that the facts on which Mr Jellicoe depended were not such as would warrant the issue of such a decree. This was a " storm in a tea-cup," and he would ask his Honor to read between the lines of the affidavits as to conduct of different parties. His Honor said he had to consider two points. (1) whether the Magistrate was biassed in his conduct of the case, and (2) whether the Magistrate was a necessary witness in this case. Mr Myers then referred at length to the facts of the case, and quoted authorities to prove that not only was the Magistrate justified in hearing the case, but it was bis duty to hear it, feeling lie was unbiassed and uninterested in the result. He referred in strongly deprecatory terms to the methods adapted by "the"other side's " counsel in the magisterial proceedings, who had sought to gain their ends by the introduction of delicate personal matters relating to the Magistrate and Mr Spence. Mr Stanford was quite right in refusing to be thus browbeaten, and was not only justified in hearing the case but was in duty bound to adjudicate upon it'in spite of the underhand churls which had been made to remove him from the bench on thai occasion, so that the case might be heard before some other -person or persons. It was difficult, he said, when referring to tr.is case, to keep within the limits of the vocabulary permissible in this Court —it was an outrage. Alt- Jellicoe replied, stating that the case brought before .Mr Spe ice was for negligence, and that this negligence included deceit and falsehood, and that the Magistrate, Mr Stanford, was the only witness who could give evidence as to such deceit and falsehood. The sub-poeiiu was legally issued on Mr .Stanford, stating why his evidence was required, and in counsel's opinion I In- Magistrate could hardly be duemed capable of considering the admissibility and weighing the value of his own evidence against that of other people, lie submitted that a Magistrate was as competent and compellable a witness as any other person in a case wherein he could give material evidence, and in such a case he should not adjudicate. No judge, without giving sworn evidence, authorities said, could import into any case any evidence which he might have of his own personal knowledge, which must, be concealed. lie submit led that in adjudicating the case now in dispute the Magistrate had unwittingly adopted an improper mode of trial, in .which prohibition or certiorari might lie. lie contended that this case was distinguished' from many of the cases quoted by Mr Myers. Where a bias or reasonable suspicion of bias could be traced to an inferior

court judge then his whole action must thereby be annulled., even although it were an unconscious bias. Although favour could not be presumed in the cuse of Supreme Court judges the presumption did not exlend to Magistrates. The argument was interrupted at 1 p.m. by the luncheon adjournment. On resinning at 2 p.m. Mr Jellicoe continued his address on the motion for certiorari.

Mr Myers replied. He said the defence of the defendant in the former action was only that the solicitor's services had been of no use to her, and that she was not called upon to pay lor them. His Honor : She alleges more. She alleges that the solicitor deceived her, and would betray her position to the landlord and endeavoured to persuade her to leave her licensed premises.

Mr Myers submitted that Mr Jellicoe had not produced any facts entitling him to certiorari. This closed the argument.

His Honor reserved his decision, and at three o'clock the Court adjourned until ten o'clock this morning.