Auckland Supreme Court.

Gisborne Standard and Cook County Gazette, Volume III, Issue 461, 31 May 1890, Page 3

Auckland Supreme Court.

GISBORNE CASES. Tax following Gisborne cases have come before the Court 1— Arapeta Fotae v. A. 0. Arthur.—Mr Molau moved on summons to the plaintiff to show cause why writ of summons, etc., should Mt be dismissed. Mr Clayton (Hesketh and Richmond) appeared in support of the summons, and said there was gome confusion as to who in Auckland was agent for Mr Ward, one of the solicitors, and he asked that the application might be allowed to stand over till Mr Ward could be pommunioated with. His Honor said Mr Ward had given up practice and left the colony. The application was allowed to stand over until Tuesday, when it was further adjourned. James v. Wells.—Mr Finn moved on gammons to show cause why security should hot ba given for costs in this notion. Mr tojamos Russell appeared in support of the V appUaatk»,andMrC. 1. Buddle to oppose H. n»«M was a QieborM «M, mJ Aad

I been several times before the Court. Mr Russell contended that irrespective of tha matter alleged in the affidavits the defen dint was entitled to what he asked for. He had from the first denied his liability in regard to the claim both personally and through his solicitors, and the repeated applications seemed to be for the purpose of getting him t.o admit the debt. The plaintiff was outside the jurisdiction of the Court, and had no property in the colony. Mr Buddle contended that there was nothing to show want of bona tides on the part of the plaintiff. His Honor said it would not be proper at this stage to express any opinion on the merits of the case. The question was, was the plaintiff out of the colony, and had nothing in the colony that could be touched in the event of the action going against him. As there was no doubt upon that point, he would order that security for costs must be given, the costs of the application, £2 2s, to be costs in the cause.