SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 38, 10 March 1909, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

GISBOKNE SESSIONS. ] By Telegraph.—Press Association. Gb.borne, La>t Night. At the Supreme Court to-day. before Mr. Justice Edwards. Edward Boniface, for breaking and entering, was sentenced to two years'. This was bis second trial, and the convictioji wa* solely on the finger-print evideuefc. This concluded the criminal .sitting.

i A claim for damages for alleged libel and wrongful dismissal. Council v. Uisborne Times, was partly heard.

IXYI3UCARGILL SESSIONS.

Juverwirgill. Last Xight. At Hit 1 Supreme Court to-day, the Wallace: County Council appealed | i.nst the decision of the magistrate in a ease. Alfred Coster v. the County Council, in which the magistrate had awarded XSO damages and £6 18s expenses alleged to have beea iueurred by Coster through lon* of sheep, the result of negligence on the part of the county workmen in having failed to repair a fence opened by them in connection with road construction. The grounds of the' appeal were that the magistrate was wrong in holding defendant guilty 01 negligence, ami that there was no evidence to show how the sheep wen- \o>\ or justify the magistrate in holding defendant responsible. The appeal was allowed, with costs £lO 10s. Thi». trustees of the late .1. T. Thompson, in a !=uit against member* of the Southland County Council, asked for an order interpreting section 111» of the Public Work* Act. HHW. and declaring whether phthttills were liable to gravel certain mads laid out thy them in subdivision of suburban land in Invercargili. il'laintilfs alleged that, they were bound by law to form the roads but noc to- gravel them, ami defendants contended (hat the meaning 01' the word "form" in the Act was to make the road and iinisll it by gravelling. The Judge held that, there was a distinction between the word* "funning''and "gravelling" when used in, connection with road-making, and interpreted the section in favor of claimant. J. S. Xeace. barrister, moved for an j issue of a writ of certiorari to remove I the conviction of Frank Poll for sly-grog selling into the Supreme Court, with a view to having the conviction quashed. The ground of the application was that the service of the summon* was unreasonable. in that it was served on PofPs 1 wife during PolF's absence in Dunedin, r?o that Poll' could not be advised of the Wtsue of the summons, and did not hear of it until the dwy of the trial after he had been eonvieted. The Judge held that as the case came, before the magistrate the magistrate was justilied in supposing that Poll k'nCw all about it, The application. was refused.