SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14761, 3 September 1913, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

(Before Mr Justice Denniston.) CIVIL SITTINGS. Tho Civil sittings of tho Supreme Court were resumed yesterday morning. .-A'TRAMWAY'CASE. In Coombes v. Christchurch Tramway Board, Mr Dougall appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Raymond, X.C.. with him Mr Anthony, appeared for tho defendant Board. Tho claim was for £501 damages in connection with the death of plaintiff's daughter as the re : suit of an accident on the Papanui tram on the North Road on April Gth. " ■'.-■■■., Mr Raymond said that a material .witness aiid one that the Board thought it would, be unsafe for tho case to proceed' without —the driver of the tram —had been taken suddenly ill with appendicitis. Tho motorman's medical adviser: was in court, and had informed counsel that ho had ordered the motorman to bed where ho would be for ten days, and if ho were operated upon it would be threo weeks before he could I attend court. Counsel had informed counsel on the other side of matj ters, and had told him of his intention I to ask for an adjournment. "■ Mr Dougall said that in the circumj stances he. could not raise any objeej tion, although ho naturally objected tc. tho hearing being postponed. He suggested that the caso might be taken next week if the mOtorman's i condition had improved. ! Mr Raymond said that the Board was as anxious as plaintiff to go on with tho case. The caso was adjourned on the understanding that it would be taken next week if circumstances permitted. / CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. The case of Hedley, Uren and others v. Samson, a claim for £216 5s for commission, was set down for trial before a common jury at 10.30 a.m. to-morrow. IN DIVORCE. In the afternoon a sitting of the Supremo Court in divorce was held. MOORE v MOORE. Margaret Moore (Mr Cassidy) petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Francis Augustus. Moore on the grounds of desertion. Respondent was not represented. Petitioner stated that she was married on August Bth. 1900. ami afterwards they lived in Christchurch, where a child was born on May 17th, 1901. Two years after her marriage her husband went to Sydney. The last occasion on which/ petitioner saw respondent was on January Ist, 1906, when he left for the South in the ordinary way. A day or two afterwards she received a telegram from her husband stating: "Sorry cannot get home; hope well; love. Frank." The firm who had em- { Eloyed him searched for him, but he ad not been traced. There were two children of the marriage. Thos. Gibbon Yennell, father of petitioner, stated that he last saw respondent in January, 1906. With the assistance of his son witness had maintained petitioner. , Thos. Gibson, police detective,- stated that he knew that a -warrant for the ! arrest of respondent was issued in February, 1906, and was still in force*. A decree nisi, to be made absolute in threo months, and custody of tho children were granted. HAMILTON v. HAMILTON. Ralph Hamilton (Mr Johnston) petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Dora Penelope Hamilton, on the grounds of habituaT drunkenness and habitual neglect of domestic duties. M O Barnett, solicitor's clerk, gave evidence of service of documents upon respondent. * , The -oetitioner stated that he. was a. storeman, and-that his wife started to drink as -oon as they were married, and worso after oghtecn

months. His wife neglected her household duties. Petitioner ■ had curtailed of money he gave her, in order to prevent her getting drink.. Respondent left his house on May 12th. His wife pawned articles out of the house in order to pet driTik. Joseph Charles Harris, acting-Detec-tivp Regan, and Thomas Lister deposed to respondent's drunken habits. A decree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months.