MONDAY, AUGUST 13.

West Coast Times, Issue 278, 14 August 1866, Page 3

MONDAY, AUGUST 13.

The Court resumed at ten o'clock ' ■ Several cases were disposed of by his Honor, iii .Chambers. APPEAL AGAINST WARDEN'S DECISION. | Mr Harvey (banister) appealed to the Court a'gainst'the decision of Mr Warden Schaw, who had fined him L 3 and costs, on the 9th inst., for not having, provided himself with a business license. Mr Harvey raihed several objections to the decision — one being that the jurisdiction of the Warden did not extend to the municipality of HoHtika. His Honor thought it rather strange that solicitors should not be permitted to practise without a license, and wondered ■what the barristers and solicitors of the High Court of Westminster would think of it. lie, however, ruled that it was not in his power to hear the appeal then, as the 29th section of the Goldfields Act of 1862 stated that one month, must elapse after notice of appeal was given, before the case can be heard in a higher court. Moreover, as such cases must be heard in the District Court, he should be unable to adjudicate upon it in Christchurch. It would, therefore, have to stand over until the next Sessions of the Westland Supreme Court. THE GREEKSTO>'E CASE. The argument as to the special verdict of the jury, in this case, having been called on, Mr South (for the plaintiff) drew his Honor's attention to the 33rd section of the Appeal Act, which empowers a single Judge of the Supreme Court — when any question of law has arisen which he may consider fit to be laid before the Court of Appeal — to forward a statement of the case in writing to such Court, providing the parties interested agree to such a course. The learned gentleman said that his oljrct would be fully attained if the rule laid down in the above section were abded by. He considered it important that the case should go before the Court of Appeal, as it involved most serious points of law. His Honor quite agreed with Mr South in the view he took of the clause quoted, and thought the case-enist go before the Appeal Court, for he presumed that, whichever way he decided, the opposing coimsel would appeal against it. Were the matter left to him, he should decide against the plaintiff. (Mr South presumed as much.) If the counsel for the defen-. dant raised no objection, he would direct that the pleadings upon the special verdict should be drawn up, and sent to him for the Court of Appeal to decide upon. Whatever his opinion might be on any case brought before him, he was always ready to aid parties in appealing to a higher court. lie always leant to an appeal. Mr Harvey, the defendant's counsel, had no objection to offer to the course proposed, which was accordingly adopted. The statement of the case was ultimately prepared by counsel, and forwarded to his Honor.

This concluded the second sittings of the Supreme Court in Westland.

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT (Before G. G. FitzGerald, Esq., R.M.)