SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 11278, 20 May 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS

Tee civil s-itting* opened yesterday. 1-efrrs his Honour Mr Justice Dennis-ton ADJOURNMENTS. In tho case of Watts v. Watts, in divorce, ill- un behalf o; the p?iifeicnci, tipputd for an i-rder tor trial ol the case at the nest sitting of the Court of Appeal at Timaru. His Honour inside the order. BIRD V. COATES.. Tins was'a case before n common jury of four, in which Thomas Bird, a labourer reHd'ng at Rangiora, sued John Coates, a contractor at Rangiora. to recover. £200 as damages for the seduction of Ms.daughter Bridget Verral Bird, fifteen years and five montlis old. The plaintiff/ who is fifty years of age, is a neighbour of the .defendant,' and .had been m the habit of frequently coining to the nonse of plaintiff as an intimate friend for many years, culminating in the seduction of the* daughter of plaintiff. The statement of defence" admitted the seduction, but denied the damage. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiff, and I Mr Stringer for defendant. Mr Johnston called evidence for the plaintiff. The plaintiff detailed the frequent visits of the defendant to his house, and also that he had told witness as to the seduction, and said he would marry his daughter. however, could not reconcile the marrying of a child such as his daughter u> a man of the age of the defendant, but the latter persisted in wanting to many her Subsequently the interview between them got pretty warm, and witness refused to spsak to "defendant any more. The confinement took place in the SaZvation Army Home at Christchurch, and he had to pay £5 fees, and 7s 6d per week lodging for soma four or five months. In addition to extra clothing, etc., he had had to incur ..other expenses. Proceedings were taken against Coates by his daughter under the Destitute Persons Act. and an order was made for payment of 7s per week and £11 towards expenses. He received £10 from Coates, under that order. In cross-examination 'by Mr Stringer, the witncss~said he did not consider the defendant a fit and proper person to marry Ids daughter owing to his intemperate habits. The defendant and his daughter were not courting. Three of his othei daughters had .got into trouble out of nine. Thrv were all away from home in service at tTie time. Witness got £50 in one of ihe citSes, and paid for the confinement and other expenses. Witness was now drawing the 7s per we.?k from the defendant and , kerping the child. j Bridget Verral Bird deposed that Coates I had been a friend of .her family ever since ! shs could remember. Her parents knew ; rothing ■ of the relations existing between , Coates and herself. In reply to Mr Stringer the witness said even if her father had been willing she would not hare married Coates, because ne was not a decent man. Mr Stringer opened the case for the defendant. He admitted that the defendant had done a wrong to the plaintiff, and it was for the jnry to assess the damages. They must remember that the defendant was now paying 7s towards the maintenance of the child. The defendant, John Coates, deposed that he wished to marry the girl and hush up the whole matter, but the plaintiff would not do so. The parents of the girl were aware of the fsict that he went out with their daughter. Coates asked him if there was anytliing between his daughter and witness, Avhich he took to mean was wbether he Mas courting her. Witness replied that he would tell him when it was so. He could keep the girl comfortably, ns he had a house amt a property. Mrs "Bird had told him that when he pa.:'d the money he might have the girl. | In cross-examination by Mr Johnston, the I witness said th<it he intended to marry the girl from the beginning. Mr Stringer briefly addressed the jury, Mr Johnston replied, and his Honour summed up. The jur}-, after a short, retirement, returned a verdict for £26 costs as per scale, with disbursements. . MILLS v BREWER. . In this case, in which no defence had been .filed, thfr plaintiff claimed £110 a.s damages. The plaintiff had sold a house and land for £570, and the house was burnt down a week before completion.! The house was insured by plaintiff for £300, and the section of land upon which the house stood was valued at £100. ' Giving credit for the insurance money and the. value of fbs land, the plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £110 as difference between the sums mentioned and the original purchase money. Mr Byrne appeared for the plaintiff. After hearing the evidence of the plaintiff, his Honour gave judgment for the amount claimed, £110, with costs as per scale. WATSON v BUCKLEY. This was an action for breach of promise, in which Hannah Watson, widow, was plaintiff and John Buckley defendant. The plaintiff sought to recover Ihe sum of £500 as damages. Mr Joynt for plaintiff, Mr Donnelly for defendant, who denied all tbe material allegations. The defendant was a ploughman in the service of Mr Acton- . Adams. The plaintiff, who had been a widow for about seven years, had known defendant for some ten years, her husband and defendant working on the same place. After her husbands death Mrs Watson became I housekeeper to Dr. Little at Culverden, and I I remained.there for'some five yearsj. "The defendant," said Mr Joynt.. "though a i ploughman, is what I may call an opulent | ploughman, being worth " some £1300 or ! £1400." Buckley used to call to s*e the widow. He asked her ultimately to be his , wife, but as Mr Joynt put it, there was "no undue haste,' 5 and the lady took soma time to consider. iiome four or five months after th* lady gave a favouri able answer. The -defendant bought sm engagement ring, and then -est out on the quest of a home for her. ilrs Watson, who had left her plhce, however, cam© to the conclusion that the ardour of the suitor had somewhat declined, as he took no steps to get.a home ior her. In his correspondence the defendant was, Mr Joynt put it, very girdling, and his expressions of love very effusive. But a change came o'er the spirit of his dream, and he grew quite cold, ultimately bra-iking off the engagement, which had lasted some i.me or ten months. "Tha lady came to town, 1 ' concluded Mr Joynt in his opening address, "and purchased li3r wadding garments, and other things. He, however, still dallied as to the obtainintr of a honse, gradually coolinc off till the end " " Hannah Watfon. the plaintiff detailed the facts of her acquaintance with tbe defendant, and his subsequently asking lior to marry bim. Mr Joynt read some letters from the defendant to the plaintiff, which were somewhat- ct a prosuic character. He also pit in the engagement ring, which the learned counsel described as "a very pretty ring, indesd," set with diamonds, and quite appropriate. (Mr Joynt—-At the end of the letters there were some cabalistic crosses, indicative probably of. tho cresses they .would meet in their married iifc. His Honour—l don't think that rou can assume ignorance as to the character of the crosses. Mr Joynt. I will take judicial notice of them if you like. ;Mr Joynt—lf your Honour peases. Some rurther letters were read by counsel, the tone of which had become far more amatory as time went on. In all of these early letters the defendant expressed the deep love he felt .for her, and that he would work his heart out for her. Aitier Mr Joynt bad read'some, his Honour suggested that- it would ba 'better, instead of ] going through all the letters, that the material passages only should be read, and this course was pursued with the remainder i cf them The witness went on to state that she ! had written to defendant in February last, j telling hint that he must make up bis j mind one -way or tbe other as regarded the ! marriage. His last fetter, c-n March 27th, was to the effect that «he had better take a place, as lie bad not been able to m3ke a home for her. 'He. came fo see witness csi April 7th, but she was ill, and would" cot see him. He told Mr Neil, where she was living, that he did not w-.ir.-t to be hunted all orer tf-e country by j lawyers. He would rather settle with j her. because,'if Mr Joynt got hold of it. ■vritnew would not- get- much of it. Sirs j Ne;l told him to go to Mr Joynt, but he !

s'id would r.ot go near him at a"l. Subfeqwntly Me»rj Joynt and Adams sent .-> letter informing the defendant that a suit would be issued. His Honour thought it would nave been for the better if the plaintiff bad asked defendant" whet her he -would marry -her or not. Instead of doing that, she put a pistol to his head, in th 9 shape of a lawyer's lett;r. In ciosvsxamination by Mr Donnelly, witness siated that J sbe did not tell defendant that she csnld not go into any house thai was not permanent. She asked hini if he had changed his mind as to marrying her, and he said he had not. Sh«; would have given him back the engagement ring if he said he had changed his mind. This was three or four months ago. ' The Court at 5.10 p.m. adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.