Skip to Content

Decisions of the Superior Courts of New South Wales, 1788-1899

Venteman v. Coghlan [1847] NSWSupC 56

practice

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Dickinson J., August 1847

Source: Sydney Morning Herald, 18 August 1847, in Supreme Court Collection, Vol. 2, p. 6

This was a motion for a new trial, and His Honor Mr. Justice Dickinson was on the point of reading his notes on the above cause, when

Mr. FOSTER, on behalf of the plaintiff, took this preliminary objection to the notice of intended motion --- that it was not headed in the cause, --- the defendant's name being written as Cornelius Dominic Coghlan, whereas the name as it appeared in the declaration, was "Cornelius Dennis Coghlan;" and as the notice was not in compliance with the rules of Court on that head, according to the decisions thereon, it must be treated as a nullity.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, with whom was Mr. BROADHURST, appeared for the defendant, and contended that the objection ought not to prevail; the error was a slight one, and not one likely to deceive the opposite party, or to mislead him; besides the notice in all other respects is correct, and in accordance with the rules of Court; it informs the opposite party on what day the cause was tried, and before whom; these were the essentials of the rules, and they being complied with, distinguished the present case from those collected in Stephen's Prac., p. 233.

The Court sustained the objection, but in doing so said it was with reluctance and regret; but the rules of Court had not been complied with, and therefore the negligent party must abide by the consequences.

Published by the Division of Law, Macquarie University