AUSTRALIAN LAW TIMES Edited by EDWARD B. HAMILTON, Esq., B.A., CHARLES F. MAXWELL, LAW PUBLISHER, 81 CHANCERY LANE, AND ELIZABETH STREET, SYDNEY. ADELAIDE: E. S. WIGG & SONS. LONDON: W. MAXWELL & SON, 8 BELL YARD, TEMPLE BAR. MDCCCLXXXVIII. 5 Mutual Live Stock Coy., re Nantes v. Towong, Shire of 12 Scott v. Nicholl 97 Sharp v. Jesson Showers v. Bull 204 225. 225 148 National M. L. Ass. Co. 25 v. 155 Sinclair v. Young 10 Stevens v. Morgan Somerset v. Williamson 77,220 203 7,47 127 Bennetts, In re Cornish Q.M. Coy. : Dagnall, exp Davidson v. Wright 152 McDonald v. Cawker 155,217 McKinley v. Robinson 100,163 Maxwell v. Cooke 197 Melbourne Tramway Trust v. SOUTH AUSTRALIA. 214 Atty. Gen. v. Adelaide L. Ass. Co. 40 Atty. Gen. v. Waterhouse 123 TASMANIA. 205 130 212 128 Jones v. Page Masonic Hall Coy. v. Price 119 Strong v. Dickson 19 Rules of Supreme Court, Order LXIV. r. 7-Administration of Justice Act 1885 (No. 844), Sec. 8The application for an extension of time for applying under Sec. 8 of Act No. 844 should be made before the expiration of the time given by the Act-Order LXIV r. 7 does not apply to such an application. Application behalf of the plaintiff under Order LXIV r. 7 for an extension of time for applying under on Sec. 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1885. The action, which was one of ejectment, was tried at the County Court held at Hamilton on the 25th May, 1887, and the application was made to extend the time. Mr. McIntyre in support. His Honor said-I do not think rule 7 of Order LXIV applies to an application such as the present. Where an extension of time is required the application should be made before the expiration of the 8 days given by the act. Solicitor for applicant Allingham. Dr. McInerney in support. The pleader now has to state the facts upon which he relies, Order XIX r. 4. Where a defendant denies making a note, and then alleges that he made the note under certain circumstances, he cannot be said to be alleging the facts on which he relies. If paragraph 3 were correct, then paragraph 1 only erected a hurdle in the plaintiff's path before issue could be joined. Mr. Forlonge to oppose; contended that inconsistant defences could be pleaded as shown in Appendix E, Sec. III. His Honor-I agree with Dr. McInerney that inconsistant detences ought not to be allowed, yet, I think under our present system they are permissible. dismiss the summons but say nothing about costs. TURNBULL V. BALL. I 28th June. Before Williams, J. 27th June Rules of Supreme Court, 1884, Order III. 26-order BUYOLICH V. VRENDERBERG. Rules of Supreme Court 1884, Order XIX, r.r. 4, 16, 27, Inconsistant defences-Inconsistant defences may be pleaded together. Application on behalf of the plaintiff to strike out either paragraph 1 or paragraph 3 of the defence as being inconsistant the one with the other. The action was brought on a promissory note of XX. r.1.-Instruments and Securities Statute 1864 (No. 204) sec. 19. Schedule 2-A writ endorsed in accordance with Schedule 2 of Act No. 204 may, if signed be taken to be a specially indorsed writ under the Judicature Act. Ross v. Taylor, 7.A.L.T., 145 followed. Application on behalf of the defendant for an order directing that the judgment entered herein on behalf of the plaintiff on the 23rd June, 1887, for nondelivery of a defence, and all proceedings subsequent thereto by or on behalf of the plaintiff be set aside |