SUPREME COURT.

Tuapeka Times, Volume V, Issue 250, 14 November 1872, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANCO. (Before Mr Justice Chapman.) November 6. GALLON V.. CAMPBELL. Mr E. Cook mentioned this matter, in which leave had been obtained to move for a nonsuit. OTAGO AND SOUTHLAND "INVESTMENT CO. V. BURNS. Mr Barton, instructed by Mr G. Cook, asked for a rale nisi to rescind a Judge's order obtained herein in chambers on Nov. 1, by which order costs were ordered to be taxed by the Registrar, and paid by defendant. Those costs had been since taxed at the very agreeable sum of L 26. Mr Barton observed that in this matter his Honor in chambers had dismissed an application tor interrogatories on purely technical grounds. His rloaor : You had better be sure that you are safe in calling it a technical point. Mr Bartou : The groun 1 was that no plea was exhibited before the Judge ; but the plea to be delivered was one of general denial merely, and the Judge was informed of that f.iet by the defendant's solicitor. True, there was no plea in writing ; but the question was, whether the interrogatories asked for were pertinent to the issue, and he apprehended that the statement of counsel in chambers that the plea would be of one general denial simply was sufficient to enable the Judge to say that the interrogatories were pertinent.

His Honor : Should not proof appear upon affidavit, in order to be tiled in Court in support of the order ?

Air Barton s-übmitted not. The mere fact of the co»ts being taxed at L 26 was sufficient to entitle him to ask that the order should be varied.

His Honor : Certainly, when I discharged the order with costs I had no idea what it entailed.

Mr Barton proceeded to read affidavits filed in addition to those filed on a former motion. The plaintiffs had made an agreement in England with defendant to give him a loan of L 3,000, which agreement was to be completed in this country by defendant giving as security certain property of his at the Taieri. Mr < 'ook swore that lie attended at the office of Mr Larnach, the agent of the plaintiffs', and offered the security named, which Mr Larnach substantially refused to accept. The interrogatories asked for had reference to that interview and refusal, and were re3is^.i by Mr Larnach on the ground th:*t i hey were likely to prejudice him before the jury. Mr Cook made a further affidavit to the effect that specific statements made by Mr Larnach in this affidavit were neither true in substance nor in fact. The interrogatories were divided into three classes, and to some of them he submitted no successful objection could be made. As to interrogatories 20 to 25,

His Honor : Those were the only ones I had any doubt about. There was another requiring the contents of a document that I had a slight doubt about.

Mr Barton submitted that defendant was entitled to many of the interrogatories as a matter of right, because they were in the light of discovery. The learned counsel proceeded to Btate the facts : how Mr Burns had in England obtained a loan of L 3.000 from plaintiffs on a nine months' bill backed by his uncle Mr J. Burns, which was merely a temporary arrangement, hovr on returning to the Colony it was to be replaced by a permanent loan of LSOOO, to be secured by defendant's Taieri property, if the Company's directory in the Colony was satisfied with the security; and how Larnach, as plaintiffs' agent, declined to accept the security unless the Grant's Braes property was thrown in ; and observed that if his Honor's decision was against him on this application, the matter w«uld be taken to the Appeal Court. His Honor: That should, never be mentioned in the course of an argument. It looks like holding out a threat, for which I don't care a brass farthing. Whether I grant er refuse your rule, 1 shall do what I think right.

Mr Barton said his Honor need not be unpleasaut with Mm, for he v>a3 simply answering his Honor's question. He did not expect to be successful. But so far from using it as a threat, he was the last person to threaten his Honor with appeal, though some counsel were in the habit of doing so. His Honor : The proper time to mention appeal is when the decision of the Court is adverse to you ; and not before.

Mr Barton said, when his Honor questioned him about going into the matter at length, he was about to give his reasons for doing so.

His Honor : What I suggested was, that you should urge enough to establish your right to a rule nisi, and not argue as if you had to be answered by the other side. Mr Barton next commented upon the interrogatories ; and referred to the heavy amount of the costs as being ground for the immediate rescinding of that portion of the order.

His Honor said when he dismissed the application for interrogatories with costs, he had not the slightest conception that defendant would be called upon to pay L 26. It would make him very cautious in future when dealing with costs. Rule nisi granted. RKGINA V. SINCLAIR.

Mr Macassey applied for a direction to the Registrar to amend the order drawn up herein. It was sought to rectify a clerical error. After argument, his Honor left the parties to take whatever action to them seemed best.