SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume I, Issue 24, 27 June 1874, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

Friday, June 26. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Gresson.J His Honor took his seat in Chambers, at 11 a.m. EE THE PETITION OP W. H. HARGREAVES, A CREDITOR, AND RE JAMES CRAIG, A DEBTOR. On the motion of Mr G. Harper an order of adjudication was granted ; meeting of creditors to take place on Monday, Gth July, at 11 a.m., at the Registrar’s office, bankrupt to surrender at the same time and place. BE WILLIAM WRIGHT. On the motion of Mr Joynt the Court granted an order of adjudication; meeting of creditors to take place on Monday, 6th July, at noon. BE THE ’ WILL OP HAMILTON SMITH, DECEASED, ‘ ' Y if Mr Garrick moved for probate to be granted to Mrs Ellen Smith, the widow and sole executrix made in the will. The Court made the order. PHILLIPS V. CRAIG AND OTHERS, This case, an argument in demurrer, which had been set down for hearing to day, was postponed, BANK OP NEW ZEALAND V. BELCHER. This, which was also an argument on demurrer, was.ppstponqd. GOODYER, APPELLANT, V. - - KENNEDY, RESPONDENT, Mr Garrick; lor Appellant, Dr Foster for respondents This was an appeal from a judgment of the Resident Magistrate’s Court, Christchurch. The .appellant, defendant- in the Court below, being the owners of a certain hackney carriage, had been convicted of a breach of the Hackney Carriage By-law No. 14, in plying for hire within the limits of the city of Christchurch without a license. Upon the hearing of the information before the Resident Magistrate, it was proved that the appellant did, on the 6th March last past, ply for hire in his vehicle (the same being unlicensed) yntbiEt-the limits of the city of Christchurch, and evidence was also given for the purpose, of proving the making and existence of the by-law referred to. On the part of the appellant, it was contended—l. That it did'not appear that the by-law had been circulated in, some newspaper seven days before the special meeting of the City Council on the- * l^t, December, 1873, as required by section 189 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1867. 2, That the said special meeting did appear to have been duly convened. 3. That the circulars convening the special, meetings did not specify tlio business *ot tbos6 meetings. 4. That it appeared by the minutes of the proceedings of the said Council, that the meeting held on Ist December, 1873, was not convened to consider and make a by-law. 5. the minutes of tiSC special meetings of Ist December December were not signed, and were therefore of no effect. 6. That such minutes could only be confirmed at other special meetings. ,7., That inasmuch as the Municipal Act/1879, only came into operation on and after Ist December, 1873, no proceedings.- : nol;ice,~ or draft bye-laws could be legally given or circulated in anticipation of the! Act coming into operation. 8. That four weeks did not intervene between tie meetingabf dhe City Council . of the Ist

December and 29th December as required by section Ml of the Act, The Resident Magistrate, Mr C. (’. Bowen, in giving his decision determined that the requirements of the law had been substantially complied with in making the said by-law, and convicted the appellant, and fined him ten shillings. , . After a lengthened argument by the learned counsel, His Honor took time to consider judgment.