SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16947, 23 September 1920, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. j (Before hi 3 Honour llr Justice Sim.) ! CLAIM FOR COMMISSION. Trrc case in which Herbert Henry Cook, land agont (Mx Upham, with him i£r Sim) sought to recover from Roderick McKenzie (Mr Alpers with, him Mr Thomas) the eum of £5G'2 10a commission, in connexion wit'i the saZe cf defendant's property, Mount Whitlow, vrao resumed. His HortouT 3ummcd up a.nd,. referring- to defendant's allegation that plaintiff altered a document, eaid that the alteration, if it -were made, was purposeless, a? there was no claim made in the present action for the payment iof a procuration foe. If a men were prepare*! to make reckless charges of forgery, of that kind it might assist the jury in determining the value of evidence giver, bysuch a man in respect of matters relevant to the C3«o. As to the allegation tha.t plain-tiff-definitely undertook to raise certain sums for defendant on the property, liis Honour emph-nei-aed the facts that this trndertakiiig was not in writing , , that no attempt was made to compel plaintiff to carry out his jinderbefore the -property was transferred to Kennedy, and that the grounds alleged in the original statement of deience had been abandoned, and the dofonce on the ground of this alleged undertaking , , which wne set out in tho amended statement cf defence, Sled on August 24th, 1920, appeared to his Honour to h'avo been an after-thought. ! Tho jnry, after a retirement of two hours, returned. Rcplyinc to his Honour, the foreman eaid that the juTy had not been jiblo to arrive at a. unanimc-iis verdict—they w-ere ten to two. His Honour paid that Under Ih-e Act h.3 would have to keco tho j-ury another hcur, but he understood that both counsel had consented to take tho verdict now. Counsel absented to this. I The jury's replies to the issues submitted. I (1) Did the plaintiff undertake. dofinit*y to ( rake for the defendant a sum of £5000 on ■ i Kennedy's equities of redemption, and a-so to get the first mortise on Mount Wbitnow : iacr«!3ed from JEIO.OCO to £16,000?—Xo. i (2) If he did k> undertake, d:d tlie defendant oontract u\l,U Kennedy in relianbe of 1 euch undertaking?— No. (3) If plainliS d;i pr> was lue failure to can-,- out his undertaking euch misconduct as oivjjht to deprive the plarntiS of his right to recover ajiy commission?—J^ was entered up for plaintiff fer the amount claimed with costs; hia Honour certified for second counsel and for second day's expenses. IN DIVORCE. KOTMAK , v. NOTAIAN. The petition of L*llie Dorothy Nbtman (Mr Twyneham) for th? dissolution of hsr marriage with William Lindsay Motma.n, electrician (Mr Sargent) was heard before tho judge and a jur>' of twelve, ot v.'Jixh Sir F. C) SJiachlock was foreman. The petitioner cdlcged adultery on the part of reepoßdcnt with a Miss McWhirter, eznd roepondent alleged that petitioner's own habits and conduct induced tho adultery. The parties were married in 191-1, arfd there were two children of tJao ma.vriagc Evidenco w:s given in support <>i the, petition and respondent gave evidence. Replying to hio Honour, Mr Sargont said that Ji« did not feel that there w»3 enough oxidenco to go to tbe jury, on ths question of tie conduct of petitioner t huraiff induced tbe respondent's adulteTy owing to the shutting out of certaai, evidence, as to petitioner s conduct since elie was granted a separation order last June. The jury, without Totiring, found* that tcspondent committed adultery \vith Miss McWhirter, and lvis Hotiour prranted a deoreo nisi, to be mads ab3c-rut« in three months. Petitioner was granted interim custody of the children. Respondent was ordered to pay ccets on tho lower scale as for a defended case.