SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2304, 24 September 1908, Page 1

SUPREME COURT.

BIENNIAL SITTINGS. The half-yearly sittings of tho Supremo Court wore continued yesterday afternoon before His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. \ CIVIL. Hearing was taken in tho cases of Geo. Thos. Sefton (Mr. Mann, instructed by Air. Sievwright) v. Frederick Hall (Mr. J. W. Nolan): (1) That tho defendant execute to tho plaintiff a transfor of 4 acres 3 roods 22 perches, section 38, and 11 acres 2 roods 0 perches, part of section 42, upon payment of £lsl 19s, tho unpaid and purchase money for such area; (2) £2OO damage for lion-com-pleting, and for -failure to givo a title for tho full areas sold.. - i.

The evidence of tho plaintiff anil Air. T. N. Brodrick, surveyor, was taken, and after argument by counsel for this plaintiff, His Honor held that it was quito clear that plaintiff had no case for damages, but was entitled to a decree. In making a decree for specific performance, Ills Honor referred to the matter of costs and adjourned the case until Saturday morning, at 10 o’clock, advising counsel to settle tho matter between them in the meantime. IN BANCO.

The next case was that of Wm. Hy. Jones (Air. G .Stock) v. Daniel Courtenay (Air. H. J. Finn). The case was one calling upon informant to show causo why a writ of prohibition should not be issued to prohibit further proceedings in connection with a conviction of defendant made on November 4tli, 1907. After hearing counsel, His Honor reserved his decision. APPEAL CASE. Walter James Sykes appealed against a decision of tho Stipendiary Alagistrato in which judgment was given against him in the case of Neill v. Sykes. Air. J. W. Nolan, instructed by Air. Finn, appeared for tho appellant, and Air. Stock, instructed by Mr. T. A. Coleman, for the respondent. Mr. Nolan outlined tho grounds of the appeal, stating that the real point of issue was one of negligence. After reviewing at length the evidence taken in the lower Court, Air. Nolan quoted numerous authorities in support of his contention, claiming that the evidence of well-defined negligence must bo shown. ■ He held, with all duo respect to the Alagistrate, that the decision had been arrived at by wrong deductions, and lie asked tha t the case be referred - back to the Magistrate. His Honor held that lie had 110 power to repeal the decision of the Alagistrate. _ The Magistrate had evidently held in this case that the tap lrad not been properly turned off, and he (His Honor) also held that view. Tho appeal would be dismissed, with £lO 10s costs. The Court then adjourned until 2 p.m. on Friday. IN CHAMBERS. In Chambers’ His Honor made orders by consent in the following summonses: Hiraiua Rerekaipuke (Air. Hutchison) v. Wm. Douglas 1 jV.su at’ and others (Air. J. W. Nolan for Air. H. D. Bell) for change of venue-; applications to be taken in Wellington; same v. same, summons for discovery of documents, to be filed within 14 days; summons for interrogatories by plaintiff; to bo filed within 21 days; summons for an order under the Bank and Bankers’ Act, 1880, to bo filed within 14 days.