SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume IV, Issue 220, 18 April 1872, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

April 9th. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman, and a jury of twelve.)

BREACH OF PROMISE OF MARRIAGE.

Elizabeth Feeney v. John Richardson. —This was an action brought by the plaintiff for compensation for defendant having failed to fulfil his promise to marry her within a reasonable time. The damages were laid at L 250.

Mr Edward Cook for the plaintiff. The case was undefended.

From the declaration it appeared that on the 14th June of last year the plaintiff sned the defendant by her solicitor, Mr M'Keay, when he promised to marry Ler witui* * reasonable time. Sufficient time had elapsed, and as He refused to many her, she claimed to recover L 250 as compensation. r • The t d l efen^nt i* - master mariner, according to the evidence of k* v , . X receiving Ll2 per month, and the plaintiK ;, j m . migrant from Ireland, twenty-seven j»~^ of age, who since her arrival in Otago has been in domestic service, and bears a yery respectable character.

The defendant's letters were read, some of them dating as far back as March 3rd, 1869. They are very uninteresting, and were merely useful as evidence to show that the defendant had agreed to marry the plaintiff, and that up to the 25th August, 1871, he had not abandoned the intentioa.

The evidence of Mary Kerrigan and Hannah Francis were taken in confirmation of the promise to marry. His Honor addressed the jury, and pointed out that, as the defendant had not put in any answertotheeharge,theirduty was merely to assess damages, in doing which they must be guided by the common rule of law to give them in proportion to the circumstances of the defendant, so as not to be absolutely ruinous. The plaintiff had been gaining her living by honest labor, was very respectable, and was entitled to consideration at the hands of the jury.j ury. Af cer consulting together a short time, the jury returned a verdictdamages, LSO.

IN BANCO. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.)

April 10th. GARDINER V. SIDEY AND JANE COLLINS.

This was au appeal against judgment given in the Resident Magistrate's Court, respecting appellants' interest in certain leasehold property which had become liable through plaintiffs bankruptcy. It was urged that Jane Cullins was not liable to the loss of her interest in said land through the bankruptcy of Gardiner beyond the vent then due, and that the section of the Act under which judgment was given applied only to the extent of the bankrupt's interest. Appeal granted without costs.

31 'LEAN V. MACANDBEW.

Mr Macassey applied for a motion to dissolve an injunction, and to stay proceedings under an ordtr made on the 12th of January whereby the title to two pastoral runs had been extinguished. Since the above order was mnde, changes had taken place in the constitution of the Waste Land Board, which considerably altered the circumstances unde* which the injunction was granted ; «ad he now claimed a rule nisi to sp* «aide the above order.

His Honor granted a rnle nisi, o» * ue understanding that an opportunity efcould "be afforded for the parties to come to some arrangement. "' ■'

PROUDJOOT V. BANBURY.

Mr Shapcot applied for a rule nisi against Mr Strode and Proudfoot, for permission to show cause why further proceedings should not be taken in the above case. He held the Magistrate had no jurisdiction. Judgment had been given against defendant for damaging a'cerfcam portion of .the fences on the line of the Poit Chalmers Railway by throwing land on the roadway and counsel urged that defendant was acting on behalf of the Road Board.

His STonor said the affidavits filed by the defendants failed to show how the question of jurisdiction came before the Court, and he therefore could not give a rule upon thtm. The defendants, however, conld apply again upon more explicit affidavits, showing how the question of jurisdiction and title was involved.

JENOUR V. THE CORPORATION OF CROMWELL.

In this case the affidavit of plaintiff set forth that the Corpoiation made certain claims against him which he agreed to submit to arbitration. An award was made by the arbitrators the second day after the time fixed by the deed, and for an account greater than that claimed. Jenour gave notice of his intention to dispute the award, but an action was ,brought in the Resident Magistrates Court and payment obtained for the amount. Mr Howorth, on behalf of Jenour, now moved for a writ of Prohibition (in the grouud that the action referred to was brought prematurely ; that the agreement and award were insufficiently stanfped, and that the award was not made in time. His Honor granted a rule nisi, returnable in ten days after service.

April Hth.

BARTOJi V. THE "OTAGO DAILY TISIEB " AND

" WITNESS " COMPANY. Mr Macassey for the plaintiff; Mr G. B. Barton for the defendants.

In this case Mr Macassey asked the Court to make absolute the rule nisi requiring the directors and certain officers of the Company to answer certain queries submitted to them.

Mr Barton opposed the application on various grounds, principally that the questions were such as no individual would be required to answer under similar circumstances.

His Honor pointed out that in such a case as that no difficulty could occur with respect to responsibility. He had looked carefully over the interrogatories, and referred to " Day " and other cases. When he granted the rule he had no doubt on the matter, and the present argument had not raised any in his mind. He considered the questions very harmless, and they might be answered without hesitation. Questions might arise involving the extent of the authority of some of the servants of the Company. In trading with an individual all such difficulties were removed, as a person thn knew whom to attack : such knowledge was a great difficulty in dealing with joint stock companies. The rule was made absolute, the costs of both parties to be costs in the cause.