LEGAL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXV, Issue 165, 12 July 1894, Page 6

LEGAL.

In the libel case, F. G. Thompson v. the Wellington "Evening Post," claim £1,000, the parties have arrived aba settlement, consequently the action will be discontinued. The Gisborne Validation Courb is doing very beneficial work. Besides the Paremata case titles to eight other blocks of different values have been validated. The judge cannot remit fees under any circumstances, and this is causing discontent. Ib presses most hardly upon natives who have nob sold. The " Herald " has a strong leader upon the subject. The motion for a wvib of mandamus on the Licensing Commibtee re ftyland's Hotel. Wellington, was dismissed by Mr Justice Richmond. _ He delivered an oral judgment, stating that the refusal was nob founded on the report of fche inspector, nor on any supposed infraction of the law by bhe licensee, or on any misconduct of the house; thab the Committee founded bheir action solely on bhe popular mandate, and in such casßS he held it was nob accessary for them bo assign any causo or reason for their refusal. After five days' bearing, the divorce case of Sheath v. Sheath, a wife's petition, was concluded ab Napier on July 4th. The wife petitioned for a divorce on the grounds of misconduct with several single women, and cruelby. Tho respondenb is a well-known solicibor. The parbies were married at Christchurch in 1877, and lived together until about two years ago, when they eeparabed. The wife alleges bhab her husband contracted habits of intemperance, and Btruck her and otherwise ill-treated! her. The Chief Justice, who sab withoub a jury, said bhab he had no hesitation whabever in granbing a divorce on tho ground of adulbery of the respondent with Mary O'Driscoll, "daughter of the late licensee of the Albion Hotel. The counsel for Mrs Sheath withdrew all imputnbions against Miss May Brown and Miss Kiely, who were mentioned at the beginning of the caße. The question of the custody of the children is to be dealt with in chambers. Judgment was delivered ab Wellingbon on Tuesday, July lObh, in bhe case of Skoy v. the Mutual Life Association of Australasia, in which the plaintiff sought to recover £1,500, amount of policy on the life of his eon. In his judgment Mr Justice Richmond 3ays tho policy, as ho reads it, mokes the undertaking of the Association to pay Bubjecfc to tho condition that no premium be overdue ab tho death of the assured. As Mr Skey's cheque was nob honoured during his lifetime the premium was overdue at tho time of his death, and this was hob imputablo to any default on the part of tho Association. The receipt given was only conditional upon payment in cash of the premium during the lifetime of the assured, and by the law of the Association did nob in the Judge's opiniou make admissible payment of an overdue premium after the death of the assured. Judgment would therefore be for bhe defendant, \vibh costs on the highest scale and two extra days. In tho bankruptcy sittings of the Christchurch Supreme Court on July lObh Mr Fisher moved for an order to seb aside the rejection of a proof of claim of the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Agency Company in respecb of a call of f22 103 per share on 525 shares of the old company, a total of £11,812 10s. The proof of debt had been pub in by the local unnager on behalf of the official liquidator of the company, for liability in respecb of the shares held by the bankrupb ab the time of his bankruptcy. Fletcher became bankrupb in August, 1803, and the company was ordered by the Supreme CourC of judication in England on July 13th, 1893, to be wound up. The Official Assignee had rejected the proof, which was for total liability, in respect of bankrupt's shares on the grounds : (1) That there was no provision in bhe Bankruptcy Act enabling liquidators to prove for prospective value of calls not made; (2) that the liquidator could nob prove by an agenb ; (3) bhat bhe liability was incapable of being fairly estimated ; (4) bhab the proof was informal and irregular, in that tho agent had nob been authorised under seal. After argumenb, His Honor ordered the proof to bo admitted. Coats were not allowed.

At tho Supremo Court; on June 30, before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly, a petition for divorce was heard. The petitioner sought a divorce from his wife on the grounds of adultery. The parties were William Montgomery Gossett. (pofeitionor), of Eemuera, clerk, Annie Venetia Gossetb (respondent), and George Brown (co-reapondent), bush contractor, of Coromande). Tho petition set oub that the petitioner on tho 11th of January, 18S0, was married to Annie Venetia Bakor, then a spinster, at tho Koinau Catholic Church, Giaborne. After the marriage they lived and co-habited together at Gisborne, Nolson, and Auckland, and the issue of tohe marriage was five children. It was alleged that on or about tha 6th of March, 1894, and on other days between thab day and the 4th of April, 1894, respondent committed adultery with one George Brown, of Coromandel, bush contractor, and that during the months of March and April it was alleged (leo. Brown frequently visited respondent at Mrs Hanson's boarding-house in Victoria-street, and on divers occasions committed adultery with her. Petitioner prayed for a dissolution of the marriage and custody of tho children. His Honor _ granted the decree nisi, but as tho potitioner had the children in his custody there was no need to make an order in that rospoct.—No costs Were allowed.

On July 2nd at the sitting of the Supreme Court (in bankruptcy) Mr Jame3 Ruesoll applied that an order of discharge be granted to Alexander Heany, formerly of Lichfield, hotel and storekeeper. The Official Assignee's report was read, in which it was stated: " I have now only to deal with the question of tho bankrupt's booka. The bankrupt carried en the business of storekeeper as well as hotel-keeper. The store booka are fairly well kept, and sufficiently show the transactions and dealings in that branch of the business, bub no books have been produced showing the hotel transactions except some small pass books, which were made up by tho bankrupt after the bankruptcy from data which he afterwards said he could produce, but upon boiug allowed an opportunity of going to Lichfield to procure such data he returned saying he was unable to find them. Inquiry into the amount of hi? purchases for thab branch of his busine?a shows that in two years preceding the bankruptcy he purchased goods to the amount of £813 5s 4d, and, making a fair allowance for profit on sales, there appears to bo a large sum which must necessarily have beon received not accounted for by the bankrupt. Hie Honor said ib was a most; unsatisfactory case throughout. Ie was nob a case for immediate discharge. Ke would 3uspand the discharge for 12 months from date.

On June 29 the Supreme Courb sat) under "The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Acb, 1867," when a petition for divorce came before Hia Honor Mr Justice Conolly and a common jury of four. The petitioner waa Orlando Inroan Keinptborne, wholesale chemist and clruggi3t. Jessie Sarah Kempthorne was respondent and James Hawks and one Rogers co-respon-dents. The petitioner asked for a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage on the grounds of his wife's alleged adultery with the two corespondente. The petition set out that the petitioner was, on the 7th of October, 1886, married to respondent at St. Peter's Church, Wellington. After the marriage the petitioner lived and co-habited with his

wife ab Wellington and afa Karori,. four miles from Wellington. The issue of tbe marriage was two children (Eustace Franklyn, who waß born on the 3rd of March, 1889, and died two months later), and Reginald Cyril, who is still living. The petition further alleged that on or about October, 1893, respondent cohabited with one Rogers (whose name is otherwise unknown to the petitioner) as his wife for seven days or thereabouts and committed adultery with him, and also that on divers occasions during the months of November and December, 1893, at Auckland, she committed adultery with James Hawks, of Auckland. At the suggestion of His Honor the second question of adultery against Hawks waa withdrawn. There was no evidence to support it. His Honor addressed the jury, and pointed out that the point they had to decide was whether respondent committed adultery with Rogers. He said it was a very painful case, and that the marriage appeared a happy one until the demon drink took possession of the wife, and from that time everything seemed unhappy. After deliberation, the jury found that respondent was guilty of adultery with Rogers. His Honor granted the decree nisi, returnable in three months.

Ab the Auckland Supreme Courb on June 22nd, a somewhat interesting libel action was opened before His Honor Mr Justice Oonolly, and a jury of four. Misa Anna Wrigley, the toacher of the Foirburn Road School, Mangonui, sued Mr T. Fisher, the Chairman of the local School Committee, for libel, alleged to have been contained in certain letters addressed by the defendanb to the Board of Education. Mr Campbell, instructed by Mr Cave, appeared tor the plainbiS, and Mr Cotter for the defendant. The statement of claim seb out bhab the plaintiff waa a certificated teacher under the Education Board of Auckland, and from Augusb, 1889, up to December, 1893, held the appointment of teacher in the Fairburn Road School. The defendanb from September, 1893, was Chairman of the School Committee. On tho sth of September ho wrote to the Secretary of ! the Board of Education, asking tho : Board to appoinb a male teacher instead of the preeenb female toacher. The Committee had offered her an opporounity to resign, which she declined do take advantage of. He added that the Committee trusted it would be unnecessary to enter inco any detail, as ib was hopeless to get on withoub a change. It was alleged that this meant thab the plaintiff was guilty of misconduct and was incompetent and unfit to fulfil her duties. On the 20th October, 1893, the defendant further wrote to the Secretary of the Board of Education in reply to a letter, asking the Commibtee to specify reasons why they desired it change of teachers. " They are —incompotenca of the teacher, particularly inability to maintain order, and misconduct." Onthelßth November the defendant further wrote to the Board that on the 15th inst. Mr Airey inspected the school, and by arrangement made at the instance of the Committee, held an interview with the teacher, at which tho Committee was represented by three members. Ab that meeding the question of the teacher's misconduct was gone into. On Friday, tho 17tb, at four p.m., an assault with violence waa made on the defendant, who had been induced by the teacher to meet hor then and there in the school on business of protended importance, the invitation being by letter. The defendant, in his letter to the Board, eaid a Committee meeting would ba hold soon, ab which hia atticude would be considered, and the course to decide on in view of tho outrage. It was alleged thab the defendant meant that plaintitl had been guilty of misconduct, had assaulted the defendant, and was unfit for the appointment of teacher under the Board. On the 23rd November the defendant wrote to the Board thab at a meeting of the Committee ib was resolved to suspend the teacher for gross misconduct in connection with the outrage committed on the Chairman, and he wrote to the toacher accordingly. Finally the statement of claim said :—" In consequenco of the writing and publishing of said letters or some of them by the defendanb the aaid Education Board determined the engagement of the plaintiff as teacher of the Fairburn Road School, and the plaintiff lost the benefit of such engagement and employment and emoluments thereof, and has incurred expensos in removing from Fairburn, and obtaining other employment, and has been, and is, greatly injured in her character and reputation." The statement of defence admitted that defendanb wrote and published the letters, bub denied that they were written maliciously or falsely. Tho defendanb was an tbe time of writing those letters Chairman of the School Committee of the district, and the Committee had tho management of educational matters within the district, subject to tbe supervision and control of the Board and to inspection by the inspector. Prior to the bthSeptember the Committee were diesatiatied with the managetcent of the school, and at a meeting it was resolved that tho chairman should apply to the Board asking for the removal of the plaintift'and the appointmenb of a male teacher. Tho defendanb accordingly, as Chairman, wrote to the Board, andheciaimedbhabibwasn. privileged letter. On or about the 18th October the defendanb, as Chairman of Committee, received a letter from Mr Rico, secretary of the Board of Education, asking the committee to specify the reason why they desired a change of. teacher. The committee meb on 20bh October, and after considering the matter, resolved that plaintiff be charged with incompetence and misconduct. This he eenb to bhe Board, and claimed it was a privileged communication. On the 15bn of NovemberMr Airey,lnspector of the Board, ab the request of the committee, had an interview with plaintiff in the presence of a quorum of the Committee, at which complaints made by the Committee of the plaintifl's conduct were investigated. On the 16bh November the plaintiff wrote to detendant as Chairman of bhe Committee, inviting him to meet her. Defendant attended ab the schoolroom ab four o'clock on the 17bh Novuinber. A Mrs Whitehead, a friend of plaintiff's, was preeonb. Plaintiff informed the defendant! that the business she wished to speak to him on was the charges made against hor: by tho Committee, and she demanded ( that defendant explain the reason why the charges were made. Mrs Whitehead closed the door of the schoolroom, and said that she and the plaintiff would not allow defendant to leave the room until he had made tbe explanation. Defendant remonsbrated with plaintiff on such conduct, and endeavoured to leave the room, when Mrs Whitehead struck at him with the echool pointer, but he warded off bhe blow and succeeded in leaving the room. The Committee then resolved to suspend tho plaintiff for gross misconduct, and the chairman forwarded the resolution to the Board and the plaintiff. The defendanb further denied bhab plaintiff's engagement witbtbeßoard as a toacher has been determined by the Board. Ha admits that she was removed from the school, bub she wa3 appointed to a school of equal value. He denied that she had incurred any expense of removal, as these were borne by the Board, and he denied that she had to seek other employment, or that she had been injured in her character and reputation. The trial lasted sixdaye, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff and awarded £75 damages. Judgment was therefore given for that amount and coats.

The tender of G. Scott, of Christcburch (£<3,867), has been accepted for the Mangatainoko railway bridge; the tender of A. Grandison, of Auckland (£2,823) is accepted for station buildings at Roborua ; and the tender of M. Fallon. Auckland (£6,232), for laying permanent way to Rotorua.