SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 12963, 16 November 1907, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

I.N* CHAMHTRS

H:a HnruT- Mr Jt:.-.,,r0 Cr.vr.r.in. presi-ii-l it •«:■.<■• <:h;:n> ; .•itimj <>f tho tsupi"Pli:c Coil:' \«vtrp'!:iy. for n.«>'.i..te ni-.d lrtters of administioti.r.-. v.nv ;?.i anted us follows:—He Catherine .St ftf.v;d,, deceased Olr M<iHey). proime; re William Hutchings (Mr Flesher). for administration, surety fixed at £100; ro John Andrews (Mr Flcsher), tor probate; re •fane Thomas (Mr i?lnTor.i, probate; re M. J. Ryan (Mr Hobiu), probate: re Eliz« Bell (Mr Helmorc.).. for administration: re Thomas Inghara Jovnt (Mr Andrews), for administration, surety fiso:l nt £300; ro George "Welter Field Mr Wynn-Wiliiam?). for administration : n? Hush O'Connor (Mr Vincent), probate; re Klizabeth Johnetono (Mr Or.r.na!!), iirobate. Orhrr implications were granted, cc fo.lous: — i{o Mores Hammond (Mr Flank■•■. t> confirm Registrar's report; re (hulr. hurst (Mr Izard), to confirm ! i _L;>t r-ir report; re J. 13. Acini) I (Mr Wild in?), to confirm Rcgieiiiir's irpr>rt. Ro riinffe\ (Mr Lrathem) v. Chaffey (Mr 1 union, an application by the wifi' for MTiirity tor costs. Mr Turner, in opposing tl' p application on behalf of the husband, stated that the parties separate;! muler a deed of separation in H'Ul. the husband undertaking to pay £1 per week towards his iviie's maintenance. This agreement had been complied with, with the exception that seven or eight payments had not been made. The conduct of the wife had not been such that the Court would be justified in making the order against the husband for security of her co>ts in a divorce case. Mr Leathern contended that tho affidavits filed by the husband did not prove anything, and the allegations had been specifically denied by the wife. His Honour reserved his decision. He Lagan (Mr Wilding) v. Lagan, a summons for discovery was granted. Ro Charlton (Mr O. T. J. Alpers) v. Charlton (Mr lurner). leave to amend was granted. Re Tait (Mr Donnelly) v. Tait, summons to vary order ior security for costs was granted, the amount being reduced from £&) to £30. JUDGMENTS. Judgment was given in the mitter of tho wills of Mary Ann Mullins and Thtmas Carter Mullins, deceased. Win. Barrett (.Mr Weston) wee the plaintiff, and proceeded against the children end grandchildren of tho testators. The matter wae the question of tho alienation of part of the estates for the compensation of disappointed parties. A long technical judgment dealt with the various points raised. Judgment was given in the matter of the will of the Hon. J. T. Peacock, the nlaintiffe being J. A. Macrae-Pei-cock and W. M. H. Peacock, end tie defendants Jane Peacock (executrix) and others. Mr Johnston appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Andrews for defendants other than the trueteee, and Mr Cotfliehaw for the trustees. This wae an originating summons, taken out in order to obtain the determination of the Court upon several questions arising out of the will of the testator. Hie Honour gave a lengthy judgment on the points which had been submitted. Judgment wae given in tho case, Alexander H. Forbes v. James Cooper, claim £372 17s 3d, balance of the price of a number of sheep. In January last the parties entered into % conditional agreement for the eele by the plaintiff to tho defendant of a farm in the Cheviot Settlement at the price of £3000, the agreement also providing for the sale of the sheep at a valuation to be arrived at one week after the transfer of the property had been sanctioned by the Land Board. Some delay 'occurred in getting tho sanction of the Land Board, and the agreement became void. The'eale was ultimately carried out, but the valuation of the sheep wae not done until four weeks later. The eele of the sheep was carried out, but the footing on which it wae so carried out was disputed. The defendant eaid that he intended to insist on the February prices of sheep, which were lower, in consequence of tho drought, than the prices at the time of the actual salo. Hie Honour reviewed the evidence on the alleged agreement et considerable length. Judgment -was given for the defendant, with coste. A .counter claim failed, end costs were not allowed on it. In the case Donald Cameron (Messrs Wilding and Acland) v. Robert Waugh and Chaa. Reid (Mr Purnell), his Honour gave judgment. The parties owned adjoining sections at Weeterfield, and it was alleged that the defendants, by means of drains and other works, had caused water to flow on and damage the plaintiff's land. The defendants admitted occupation, but denied ownership of their section, and also denied tho interference, stating further that certain works were agreed to for the settlement of the trouble. The case had been on© of great difficulty, owing to the conflict of evidence to a degreo unusual even in tfiis class of case, though there was no reason to loubt that all those called were desirous of stating the facts. It appeared hat the troublesome ditch wae cut beore the defendants occupied their land, md without the plaintiff's consent, thus neither party participated in the net, but the defendants were proceeded gainst because they alone could abate the nuisance, and by continuing it hnd adopted it. One of the defendants 'md thought they had some responsihil•tv .while tho other considered that the ■nrk done had only amounted to a bend in tho waterinrsp. An agreement had been made '"tween the parties, but as one of hem was an old man and excitable, 'lfrerence in dialect might quite coneirably have led to a. misunderstandng. The defendant Reid hnd offered •o restore the. old state of affairs, but he plaintiff had asked that half the vater should bo allowed to continue; xntl there was a misunderstanding as '1 .now that suggestion arose. The i.timate method adopted was alleged -o be unsati?»ictory, but, taking the xiintiff s own evidence, he must be 'eld to have accepted it. The defeniniits hnd money on the work in'ended to settle the difficulty. The )l.imt.ffs case failed. HiV Honour -are judgment for the defendants xith costs.