SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 10778, 4 October 1900, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

A sitting in banco was held before his Honour Mr Justice Martin yesterday- morning. 5 -i. TAYLOR AND* OAKLEY V. GRIFFEN. This was a case on appeal from the S.M. Court, Christchurch, in which the respondent had obtained damages for injuries sustained in the appellants employ. Air Stringer for appellants, Air' Donnelly for the respondent. Air Stringer applied for a rehearing of the case 'before his Honour on the ground of discovery of additional important evidence with reference to the machine. Air Donnellv objected to the course proposed by Mr Stringer, as no evidence could now" be brought forward which could not have been available when the case was before the magistrate. Besides which, an important witness had since been dismiss-d from the employ of the appellants. The Afagistrate had all the facts before him, had visited the .place, had inspected the machinery, and had adjourned the case twice. His Honour said that sufficient cause had not been shown to justify either o-iehea-ing or the taking of additional evidence. He would, however, with learned counsel inspect the machine at 10 a.m. the next day before the hearing of the appeal. ARROWSAIITH AND ANOTHER v MANNING AND OTHERS. This was an originating summons, in connection with the will of John Manning, deceased', of which the plaintiffs were trustees and executors, the defendants being the beneficiaries under the will. The questions propounded for the decision of the Court were, shortly:—(l) Should the stamp duty, debts of deceased, cost of obtaining probate, etc., be paid out of the estate; (2) what sum, _f any, is the defendant entitled to out of the estate under the provisions of the Destitute Persons Act; (3) if the defendant Mary Ann Manning is entitled to a weekly or other payment out of the estate, what sum should be set aside by the plaintiff as trustees to invest to provide for the payment thereof. The brief factsin the case were that John Manning died at Christchurch on 6th January, 1900, and probate was granted to the plaintiff. The will left out his widow absolutely, dividing his estate between other beneficiaries, his grandson, etc. On the Bth of August, 1899...an order was made in the S.AI. Court, Wellington, that John Slanning should pay twenty shillings per week to her. The trustees, as advised, after the death of the testator, declined to pay the maintenance. 'Airs Manning, through her solicitor, objected to the executors paying any claims on the estate. The amount at the credit of the estate was £1074 Os 2d, in the Bank of New Zealand, and a tenth share in the estate of the father of the deceased, estimated to be of the value of £328 Is lOd, making a total of £1402 2s. The trustees being unable to proceed under the will with the winding up of the estate, instituted the present proceedings, with a view of getting the opinion of the Court on the point raised. This, shortly put, was whether the order for maintenance continued in force after the death of the person against whom the order for maintenance was made.

Mr Fisher for the widow; Mr Lane for the ta-ustees; Mr Hall for one of the infant -beneficiaries; Mr Russell for one of the creditors.

•Mr Fisher urged that under section 24 of the Destitute Persons Act the widow was entitled to the maintenance claimed, as the order being filed in the Magistrate's Court had all the force of an annuity as reg-arded l the person in whose favour it Avas made/

Mr Russell submitted, at some length, that the maintenance order made by the Stipendiary Magistrate waa 'purely a personal order, far the breach of which the person against whom, it was made could be punished by imprisonment. Therefore, he submitted that the death of the person against whom the order was made had the effect of terminating and determining the order.

Learned counsel (having addressed the Court,

His Honour took time to consider.

The Court then rose

ef our Trad*-