LATEST AUCKLAND NEWS. [BY TELEGRAPH—OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

Waikato Times, Volume XX, Issue 1683, 19 April 1883, Page 2

LATEST AUCKLAND NEWS. [BY TELEGRAPH—OWN CORRESPONDENT.]

Welcome Bequests. Auckland, Last Night. Mr E. Costley, a well-known old identity, who accumulated great wealth by purchasing city property, and lending money, died to-day. His estate is valued at £135,000, the whole of which, excepting a, few minor legacies, is to be divided between the Auckland Hospital, the Old Men's Refuge, the Parnell Orphanage, the Auckland Institute, Free Library, Sailors' Home, and the Training School at Kohimaraniara. A legacy of £4000 is left to Mrs Mackie, wife of the coach builder, with whom he lived for many years.

Meeting of Creditors, At a meeting of the creditors of R. C. Jordan, to-day, it was showu that considerable properties are vested in the bankrupt's wife.

Mining. Sales: Prince Impeiial, to-day, Gls : Deep Level, 6a.

The Races. Tlic following are the ruling prices straight out betting on the Easter Handicap : 4to 1 agst Leonora, 4 to 1 agst Siesta, 5 t« 1 ag^t Tim Whitiler, 5 to 1 iizst Libeller, 1 to 1 ngst Normanby, 9 to Tagst Maori, 9 to 1 agst Merlin, 10 to 1 aust Poet. Maoii's improvement i.s accounted for by his galloping, which caused fiequcnt onquhy. The amounts laid however, were, as a rule, small.

Supreme Court.— Waikato Cases. In the Supreme Court to d.iy in the case Waikato County Council ami Hamilton Borough Council, aigumcnt on a mlc tint, Mr Hefckcth explained that some de lay had occurred in forwaidingalh"davit.\ w hicli only reached Mr Cooper thib morning, and he therefoie asked for a week's adjournment, which was granted. In ie Hammond v. "Wayte, an argument on a ) ii/c nisi for a new trial. Mr lies Loth appeared in suppoit of the rule, and Mr O'Neill to show cause. The former gentleman utged as a ground for setting aside the verdict of jury (1) that the \ crdict was against the weignt ot evidence, and (2) that damages given were ovcc&sive. Mr O'Neill, in replying, said that his learned friend had omitted to notice the point upon which the -whole matter turned, viz., the dillerence between actions in which right is invaded, and actions in which it is necessary m order to support a cause of action to show a cause of damage. He denied that the verdict was against the weight of evidence, or that the damages were excessive. His Honour said that he would take time to consider the authoiitics quoted by Mr O'Neill. He Mas unwilling to disturb the verdict of the jiuy if it could be at all suppoited. Ceitamly the damages were not excessive if the jury were entitled to give any. They found that it was a malicious piosecution, and if there was any evidence that would entitle them to give damages at all, he did not think they were excessive. Judgment was reserved.