LAW AND CRIMINAL COURTS.
SUPEEME COURT.— IN EQUITY. Pbidit, Junb 6. fBefor* the Full Court.]
FBAKCIS V. MA.Y0B AND UORFOEATIOH OF dU EL AIDE. Mr Belt moved for an injunction to restrain the Mayor ind Corporation of Adelaide and their servants from con rortinw ilio Mnnd. &p... at the Slauehterhouse into arti
icial euano by a metnod or process uiscovereu uj ma ilainlifT. The bill set forth that the plaintiff had entered ato a negotiation with the defendants (the City Council) ar the purpose of deodorizing the refuse matter of the Hauj»htcrhouse, and converting the same into an inof snsive fertilizing substance. The City Council appointed , commission, consisting of the Acting Colonial Surgeon, )r. Gosse, the then Tdwn Clerk, Mr. Sabben, and a lerson named H. D. O'Reilly, a chemist, to witness the ilaintifFs experiments, and report on the sufficiency of lis project. The members of the commission signed a rritten agreement not to divulge or make an improper ise of the knowledge they might attain of the process or .ny part of it. The commission having witnessed sue e-sful experiments, reported favourably of the plaintiff's iroposals, and negotiations were set on fjot for his un lertakin? to deodorize tho refuse in question for seven ears. Instructions were addressed to the plaintiff by he defendants to hare the necessary bond ^prepared, to lind all parties to the terms agreed on. Before the com iletion of the arraneements, the plaintiff discovered that he defendants had entered into an agreement with I D. O'Beilly.amember of their commission to examine md report on his (plaintiff's) method of deodoriza ion, to convert the refuse of the Slaughterhouse nlo artificial manure by the process proposed by the ilaintiff. The bill went on to allege certain admissions -y O'Beilly, in conversation with the plaintiff, whereby ic made no secret of his intention to avail himself of the mowledge ho had acquired of the plaintiff's process of leodorization. The plaintiff had explained to the com nission that he proposed to coagulate the gelatine and tlbumen contained in the blood by means of certain chemicals and heat. In some of his experiments be tsed certain salts of alumina, and in other experiments is used different ingredients to produce the same effect, hose other ingredients consisting of tannin, certain nineral acids, and salts of iron, by all which means the -Iood became an inodorous solid, insoluble in water, and a nerchantable fertilizer. In the conversation referred to )'Beilly informed the plaintiff that he had purchased ill the alum in Adelaide, with a. view to undertake the nauufacture of artificial guano, and that he would, if lie plaintiff interfered, substitute some other chemical mbstance that would answer the same purpose. One of he defences set up was that the process was not an jriginal invention as alleged. The prayer ot' the Bill ftas for an injunction to restrain the defendants and their servants from making uso of knowledge obtained rom the plaintiff, and for an account of the proceeds liready realized. The Conrt were of opinion that it did not sufficiently ippcar that the process employed by the servants of the Corporation was precisely the same as that communi :ated by the plaintiff, and, although not granting an injunction, allowed fourteen days for filing interroga tories. He North Kasujtda. Miniso Compast. Mr. Belt applied, under the Trustees Act, on tho petition of certain purchasers of allotments of the land formerly the property of this Company, for the appoint ment of a person or persons to convey to the petitioners the allotments purchased by them. The application was necessary in consequence of the absence from the colony of G. A. Anstcy a;id James Buncc, two of the three oricinal trustees. Affidavits of the purchase and payment 'of the purchase-money, and also that John Ellis was the only one of the three trustees at present in the colony, were filed in support of the petition. The Court made an order constituting the Master of the Court a trustee, who could join with Mr. Ellis in conveying the property. Stkvbnsoh v. Fcrais. Mr. Gwynne applied to the Court to decide as to misunderstanding between him and Mr. Belt as to the effect of the decree herein. Tho decree was that the defendant was to pay costs. He submitted that Messrs. Samson and Lawrence, who were disinterested parties drawn into the suit, were entitled to costs as between attorney and client. The Court decided that the defendant was to pay all costs. Is- the Estate op — 'Wnis-SBBiH. Mr. Stow moved for a vesting order herein, under the Trustee Act, to vest the legal estate of one-half of Town Acre 453 in the petitioner, it being at present vested in Charles James Heath, who is absent from the colony. The only question was as to the application of the Act 27 Henry VIII., c.16, commonly called the Enrolment Act, to this colony. He was under the impression, on the authority of tho Attorney-General v. Steward. 2 Mer rivale, 156, that the Act did not apply to this colony, but for the satisfaction of tho profession it was desirable to have the decision of the Court upon that poiut. The Court decided that the Act referred to did not apply to this colony. MUIRHEAD V. l)OW7f EB. Mr. Bagot said that was a suitfor specific Performance. An informal agreement had been made to lease certain premises from the plaintiff in King William-street, but from time to time the terms became developed into an arrangement to take the premises on lease for ten years, at a rental of £160 per annum. The defendant and his partner entered into possession and paid two quarters' rent, and gave directions for the preparation of a lease ; but a misunderstanding arising, which was followed by a dissolution of partnership, the defendant sought to evade his contract with the plaintiff by refusing to execute the lease, although his partner, Mr. II. D. O'lieilly, had signed it before the partnership was dissolved. The original agreement was an offer in writing to take the place at the rent of £1-0 per annum and a sum to cover insurance, which was afterwards fixed at JE10 per annum, The learned gentleman read affidavits in support of the statements in the bill, which prayed for an order for specific performance. Mr. Belt apprehended that the only question for the Court was as to the tenancy created by the written agreement. It was clearly, he maintained, a tenancy from year to year, and could not be affected by any con versations afterwards. As to the terms being; afterwards developed, according to his learned friend's reasoning, had the defendant continued in possession a little longer the term might have developed into a lease for 20 years. As to the execution of the lease by O'Reilly, it was after Uv. dissolution of partnership, and did not affect the defendant. Had the plaintiff wished to bind the de fendant to anything more than was expressed in the written agreement, he should have had it expressed specifically. He called the attention of the Court to Clayton v. Illingworth, 10 Hare's Reports, where the Court refused to enforce specific performance of an agreement for a mere tenancy from year to year. Mr. Bagot, in reply to the Court, said a leaso had been prepared, and produced it. Mr. Justice Cooper — It docs not appear in your claim that a lease for 10 years had been prepared. There is, in fact, nothing positive as to the agreement for 10 years except in the affidavit of O'Reilly, and the lease wss one which the defendant wa3 not bound to execute. After a long conversation tho Court dismissed the claim, without prejudice to future proceedings. Roberts v. Roberts. Mr. Belt aslccd for judgment in this matter. The Court decreed snecific performance.
Fox v. Fox. Mr. Belt moved, on tho petition of the widow of the late Arthur Fox and his infant heir, that a sum of C1.1S0 advanced by Mrs. Fox for ths purposes of the istate should be secured on it by mortgaee, and bear nterest at the rate of 10 per cent annum. The principal ibject of the application was to obtain an order to dis :harge the receiver appointed by the Court— that office )cing no longer necessary, aud its abolition would effect i saving of expense. The original arrangement required ho appointment of a receiver, but such was not now necessary to the estate, as ths interest on the money ad ranccd by Mrs. Fox would equal (less £2) the balance of rout to be paid on account of the heir for the premises [Marybank) she occupied. Mr. McEllistcr, the receiver appointed by the Court, concurred in the propriety of the proposed arrangement, snd he had in fact declined to ;hargc the commission he was entitled to. The petition prayed that the £2 referred to should be added to the mm paid to Mrs. Fox for the maintenance of the infants, flic learned gentleman gave the particulars of payments, amounting to £1,480. Mr. Justice Boothby thought the interest asked for excessive considering the youth of the heir (nine years). Mr. Bagot appeared to consent on the part of tho receiver. The Conrt having examined the accounts, decided on granting the mortgage, the rate of interest to be 8 per sent., but the surpius to be added to ths allowance for maintaining the children. The receiver to be discharged. SWAK V. CU5TANCE. Mr. Belt moved, on the petition of B. A. Kent and W. Gosse, for leave to come in and claim a debt of £12, for attendance and medicine for the use of the late R. W. Custance. The petitioners were not aware of the adver tisement in the Government Gazette callini? for the
iroot of debts within a certain period, and that rendered he present application necessary. Mr. Bagot appeared to consent on the part of the nfants. There was a balance sufficient to meet that :laim on the estate. The Court made tho order prayed for. IX BANCO. i Dowxee v. Hitvbsbstoxe. i Mr. Justice Cooper said the Court had looked into Mr. Fisher's application to deprive the plaintiff of costs, or ather to reduce them to the lower scale of the Local 3ourt. Tho Court was disposed to certify that the :ause was a fit one to be tried in the Supreme Court. He found that Lord Chief Justice Tindal, in the Court -f Common Pleas, where a ease had been referred to urbitration and came back, had certified for costs. The rule was refused. Ratepayers of MoRrnEir Vale v. A. Akbersos. The Advocate-General moved for a rule nwi to show ;ause why a writ of mandamus should not be issued from that Court calling on Alexander Anderson, of 3Ior phctt Vale, to produce and show to the ratepayers of that district, especially John Burgess Miles and James Clark, the voting-paper* delivered m at the last election for District Councillors at Morphctt Vale. A meeting of ratepayers had been duly held at Morphctt Vale on the 3rd March last, at which Alexander Anderson, as District Chairman, presided, and eventually took away with him the voting-papers delivered in by the several ratepayers who attended the meeting and claimed to vote thereat. The learned Advocate read affidavits, from which it appeared that on the tiai April John Burgess Miles, with James Craig and James lialloway, went to the h use of Alexander Anderson, and requested an in spection o:' the voting-papers, but they were informed by Mrs. Anderson that her husband was not at home, and that she knew nothing of the voting-papers. On another occasion the present CIr-irman of the District Council saw Mr. Anderson near his house, and asked to be allowed to inspect the voting-papew, but Mr. Anderson turned away and cave him no answer. A visit by W. D. Sanderson, the Clerk of the Council, to the house of Mr. Anderson on the 17th March last, for the purpose of inspecting the voting-papers, was equally unsuccessful. The learned Adrocate called the attention of the Court to the 7th clause of the local Act 16 of 1852, which provides that tho voting-papers shall be open for inspection for two months after the election. Itule granted. The Same v. tee Same. The Advocate-General moved for a rule to show cause why information, quo icarranto, should not be filed airainst Alex. Anderson, of Morphett Vale, to compel him to show by what authority he claims to exercise the office of District Councillor for Morphett Vale. He moved, on the affidavit of James Clark, farmer, which c et forth that the district of Morphett Vale was dnly published and proclaimed on the 10th November, 1853. a district, within the meaning of the Act 16 of 1852. That deponent was an inhabitant and ratepayer duly qualified to vote, and bad been elected Chairman of the district. That at the meeting where he was elected the former Chairman, A. Auderson, presided, and the fcl lowing persons were proposed as Councillors :— John Short, A. C.Kelly, James Clark, A.Anderson, Charles Smith, Ignatius Sullivan, and James Bain. That the Clerk of the district entered in the poll-book the votes given for each of the candidates, which were as follows: —John Short, 79 votts; James Clark, 77 votes; A. C. Kelly, 72 votes; A.Anderson, 53 votes ; Charles Smith, 43 votes; Ignatius Sullivan, 43 votes; and James Bain, 1 vote. The voting-papers were taken away by Ander son, who, on the 4th March, published a notice that the persons elected were himself, John Short, and James Clark. Deponent believed that declaration to be con trary to fact, and that A. C. Kelly had been duly elected. The affidavit went en to state that A. Anderson, never theless, claimed to exercise tho powers, rights, and privileges of a District Councillor. The learned Advo cate remarked th.it there was a difficulty in the matter with regard to the person who should be directed to file the information. In England the Clerk.upon the Crown side of the Court would be the proper person. By the Supreme Conrt Act that was a Court of Record, and had jurisdiction in all cases whatever, as Her Majesty's Courts ju Westminster and the Courts of Chancery. It was quite clear that there were no other means of trying the right of a person to an office of that sort except by information of quo tcarranto. The Court having powers I as ample as the Court of Queen's Bench, must alto have the necessary authority to give effect to its jurisdiction. There being no other means of proceeding, parties would
w left without a remedy unless the Court exercised the wwer which he contended it had. Bole granted. Hin v. KnrGSHTxe. Mr. Belt applied for an order for a Special Jury in ;his cause; also to have it put on the bottom of the 1st. Mr. Bagot opposed, contending that the application mould have been made before that time, as he had in ormed the attorney for the plaintiff that he wonld not lecede to the terms proposed. Notice of trial had been ;iven before the necessary time, and he had made wrangements with his witnesses. ^ Ine Court was of opinion that there should be a special Jury, and fixed Tuesday, 1st July, for the trial. ECCLESIASTICAL SIDE, ur thb Matter of ths Will of Thomas Challoneh. Mr. Bagot called attention to tho decision of Judgo Kcatine in the matter ol the will of Richard Roe in the Prerogative Conrt, Dublin. In that case, interlineations lad been made, but not attested, as in the case before !he Court. Judge Keating ignored the interlineations, sut granted probate of the original will. The Court intimated that its difficulty was in conse lucnce of their being no perceptible distinction between foe original writing aud the clause stated to have been subsequently introduced. That matter should be dis tinctly referred to in the affidavits. Mr. Bagot read from the affidavit a reference to tho late when the additional clause was inserted in the rill. Mr. Justice Cooper— The difficulty here is to distin guish between the original writing and the interlineation. Sad it not been attested there would be no means of mowing that it was an interlineation. Mr. Bagot submitted that it was evidently ic another landwriting; that appeared aho by the affidavits. Mr. Justice Cooper — We are of opinion that this is a rill that may be supported. We should have the ori 5inal affidavits, clearly defining the terms of the will first uade, as distinguished from the additional clause, Mr. Bagot called attention to the affidavits of Messrs. ^yliffe and Camp, which set out the whole of the original sill, and also the affidavit ef II. Camp, which set forth :he additional clause, written by a person named Hurrill, md duly witnessed and executed. The Conrt granted probate of the entire wilL