SUPREME COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIII, Issue 114, 13 May 1912, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

& - ■ f CIVII, SITTINGS. The civil sittings of the Supreme j Court ircjTe commenced ibefoTe Mr. Jusj tice Edwards this morning. The list ctan- , prises no less than 30 cases, irrespectiTt of divorce business. Fourteen of the t cases axe set down fox hearing by Ihis j Honor and a common Jury of twelve, j five for hearing before his Honor and j. a., common jury of fonr, and eleven for * hearing "before his Honor alone. When the ease of Chas. Daniel Grey , (Mr. Clayton) v. Linda Elizabeth Had- | ley (Mr. Hanna), claim for £3501 for [ money advanced, was called, Mr. Qayj ton stated that the plaintiff was now ■ an inmate of a mental hospital, and the j Public Trustee had not had time to make himself conversant -with the case. \ His Honor stated' that the case would , be held over until next session. I The case, Patrick Keaney (Mr. ITamp- - son) v. George Sutherland and H. T ' Hollick (Mr. Skelton), statement o \ accounts and £100 damages, was struck out, as one of the defendants had lefi '. the country and the other had' become , bankrupt. Mr. llanna announced that the case, Helvetia Ostrich Company v. New Zealand Insurance Company (Mr. Richmond), claim for £250 alleged to be due on policy, had bee.n settled. The case was thereupon struck out. Thomas Cunningham (Mr. Skelton) v. Auckland Electric Tramways Company, ' Limited (Mr. Reed), claim for £150 for ' alleged injuries received, Mr. Reed announced that the dispute had also been settled. 1 ' His Honor granted , permission for the case to be withdrawn. DIVORCE. The following divorce cases were added to the list:—Before the Judge and a jury of 12: Birkett v. Bixkett, Parker v. Parker, A damson v. Adamson, Parker v. [Parker. Before a jury alone: Inglis v. Inglis; Lindsay, Wakelin v. Wakelin, Mclnstrey v. Mclnstrey, Cotterill v. Cobterill." Alcock v. Alooek, .Savers v. Sayers, lisson v. Lisson, Lee v. Lee, Shatter v. Shafter, Woodcock, Hendry v. Hendry, Iloev v. Hoey, Lewis v. Lewis Burke v. Bafke, Muir v. Muir, Stone v. Stone, Neale v. Neale, Manro v. Mnnro, Perry v. Perry. His Honor remarked that it was perfectly obvious that if all the ca3es came up for trial it would be quite impossible I for one judge to hear them all in time. I Mr. Justice Sim -would deal with tJie I criminal business, and if his Court proceeded smoothly, and there were no disagreements, he might be able to give some assistance. It was quite uncertain, however, whether he (Mr. .Justice Sim) would be able to assist him, and he would proceed with the cases aoeording to the list unless counsel arranged to the contrary. CLAIM FOR CUSTOMS DUTIES. The first case called was that of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Tole, K.C.) v. ■vhe Waiki Gold Mining claim for £1067 12/10 alleged doty on machinery imported by defendants. Mr. Tole explained to the jury that, as far as the facts were concerned, the case depended upon whether tihe imported machines weTe really sinking pvrmips intended foT mining purposes and entitled to be admitted free of duty, as claimed by defendants, or pumps not ex•dusively intended for mining purposes and therefore subject to duty as wa9 claimed by the Department. The goods imported comprised pumps and motors to drive them. There was no duty on sinking pumps for mining purposes, while electrical motors were subject to a duty of 10 per cent. At the time the goods were landed the customs officials accepted the claim put in by ithe company that Che machinery consisted of sinking pumps, but some time later, however, reason arose to doubt this statement and as the result of investigations made the Department now claimed that the pnmpe were ordinary pumps liable to duty, as they were machinery for use in the manufacture of metal. It had been decided by the Minister to whom the point had been referred that the ■pumps were not sinking •pumps and were therefore dutiable. The defendants claimed that a representative of the Customs Department had examined the pumps while they were in operation and had passed them, notwithstanding. Th" Department, however, denied tliis, but contended that even if x mistake had occurred it wae etill entitled to make a claim for the customs duties. Arthur Valentine Perm, landing surveyor for the Customs Department, Auckland, stated that when the Mimiro arrived with "the machinery in October, 1909, be was assisting Mr. J. P. Ridings. Mr. Andrews, w-ho acted ac customs agent for the Waihi Company, had put in a sight entry to the effect that the elertrical portion of the goods, which was subject to duty, was valued at £100. Witness agreed to this. The value o-f the pumps altogether was £5000. In May an opportunity arose to send Mr. Graham, a customs officer, to Waihi to examine oil the electrical .plant and take all necessary measurements to the best of his ability, for the purpose of ascertaining the customs duties. Mr. Andrews accompanied Mr. Graham. Mr. Graham put in an entry as instructed, and no question had been raised as to whether or not the pomps were sinking pumps. (Proceeding.)