THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17393, 2 March 1922, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

crrvn. sittings. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Adam#.) DECREE FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. William Christopher McCracken, a fitter, and Ethel Alice McCracken, his wife, proceded against Arthur Kelly, of Christchurch, butcher, applying for an order for specific : performance of an agreement to purchase a property, or, as an alternative, damages amounting to £250. Mr W. J. Hunter appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr H. K. McDougall for the defendant. Plaintiff claimed that, by an agreement in writing, dated September 21st, 1921, Mrs McCracken, by her husband as agent, agreed to sell, and defendant agreed to purchase, •- freehold section at 101 Somerfield street, Sydenham, with a dwelling and ehop, for £llOO. Defendant had Tofused to specifically perform tho agreement. Plaintiff applied for an order for specific performance, £IOO damages, and costs, or alternatively, £250 damaecs and cost#. The" defendant denied having agreed by tho document to purchase the property, ana that ho knew that Mrs McCracken was willing to epeoifically perform -the alleged agreement. but admitted having had notice that Mr McCracken was willing and ready to" d-» so. Defendant still refused to carry out the alleged agreement. For a furtSer defence., it was submitted that if defendant signed the alleged agreement (which he denied) then, prior to W. C. McCracken signing acceptance of it as alleged, the latter received from defendant a notice in writing withdrawing the offer; that the defendant was informed by Heward, an agent for plaintiff, on the day prior to posting the withdrawal, thut he was experiencing great in obtaining an acceptance, as McCracken did not I desire to sell the property; The defendant thereupon posted the notice of withdrawal to the plaintiff. It was not until September 28th that a communication was received from plaintiff's solicitors, stating that plaintiffs had accepted the alleged offer prior to receiving the defendant's notice of withdrawal. Mr Hunter said it waa claimed that there was a completed contract. If the Court did not see fit to make an order for specific performance, plaintiff claimed £250 damages aa the value of the property had gone down since last September. _ Evidence was given by the plaintiffs.' Humphrey Heward, land agent, who had conducted negotiations for the sale the property to defendant, said that when notified that defendant had withdrawn hie CEer, he went to see him. Kelly told witness tßat he had heard of another place which, he wished to purchase, and he thought he could get out of the deal with the plaintiffs, on uie grounds that the vendor had not notified him of his acceptance. Witness told K'lliy that he (witness) had received notification, from the vendor, as agent. Mr McDougall eta ted that defendant submitted that he had had no -notification of the acceptance of his offer, with the exception of the verbal notification given by Heward. and therefore there was no agreement Evidence was given by'defendant and his ''His Honour, in giving judgment, said he found that the offer to purchase made by-defendant-had "been accepted by plaintiff. A decree for specifio performance of the agreement was granted. As to the matter of damages, his Honour said that if the decree were not obeyed, the Court would aesess the amount if application were made. Plaintiff waa allowed costs on the miuuia scale, OASES FOR HEARING. Further civil fixture* for the Supseme Court were settled by tho Registrar, in Chambers, aa follows:- _ _ • March 6th—lnternational Harvester Co. v. McMullan, 10.G0 a.m. ' _ ; March 7th—McEwin v. Williams and Gfilkes, 10.16 ».m. March Sth—Bankruptcy eittings, 10.80 a.m. Boattie v. Larigridge, 10.80 a.m. Ballan v. Labatt, 2 p.m. Hazoldme v. Milligan' and another, 10.30 a.m. ' March 9th—Glass v. the King, 10.15 Fransden v. Ford', 10.15 a.m. Cullen v. Derrett, .2 p.m. LnnMirch 10th—Barrett t. Miller, Ltd., 10.15 a.m. Boag v. Boag, 10.15 a.m. Scatleet V. Fairbairn. 2jp.m , March 13th—Busns and 00., Ltd.., r. Zealandi&: Soap and Candle Co., 10.15 a.m. Arlow and Co., Ltd, v. Lane, 10.30 a.m. March 14th—Jones v. Thompson.,' 10.15 ».m. Duncan v. Anderson, 2 p.m. . March 15th—Molntyre, Hogg, and Marsh v. Walden and Nunn, 10.15 ».m. Oliver v. Oliver, 2, p.m. March* 16th—Kyle v. Morwood, 10.15 a.m.' March 17th—Gurney v. Stanton, 10.15 o.m. | March 20th—Wallace v. Humphries, 10.15 a.m. March 21st—Turnbull v. North Canterbury Sheepfarinere 1 Co-operative Freezing Export and; Agency Co., Ltd., 10.15 a.m. j March 22nd—-Curtis v. Curtis, 10 a.m. Piper v. Pipe (probate in solemn form), 2 p.m. March JZBrd —Booth, Macdonald and Co., Ltd., v. Tiirpitt, • 10.15 a.m. MAGISTERIAL. /WEDNESDAY. (Before Messrs T. E. v FVaser and J. H. Seager, J.P. s.) DRUNKENNESS. A first offender was fined 6s, in default 21 hours' imprisonment. - .-x REMANDED. - Thomaa Doolan, agedi 86 years,- was charged with having, on November 21st, at Auckland, with, intent to defraud, obtained from John Grajadon Phillips the sum of £SO, by falsely representing that ho had £I6OO in the Bank of New Zealand at Auckland. On the application of the *police / Ito was remanded for a week. • THEtT. . A boy, 17 years of ige (Mr E. W. White)/ was ".hargod with having stolen a bicycle valued at £5. The Bench took a lenient view of the case, and comvicted andf 'fired him £1 and costs.. His name was suppressed from publication. _ ASSAULT. • George Herbert Jttarris, of 839 Armagh street, proceeded, against Mis Frederic* Bellingham, of 93 River road, Christchurch, on-two charges of having assaulted htm by striking him in the face and body' witn her fists;" and against Frederick-Bellingham, tea indentor, on, a similar charge. Piaintitt asked that defendants might be made to tako out sureties to keep the peace. Mr W. J. Cracroft-Wilson- appeared for Harris and Mr C. a. Thomas for uerendante. Mr Wilson said that on three, occasions complainant had been assaulted and sized up" by Mrs Bellingham and her husband. Geo. Herbert Harris said htf had' boon courting Mrs Brilingham's daughter, i 'lhe girl had told him. that her parents objected to the suit. uellingham had coine to tho bakehousd in connexion with Broadway's tfca-rooms, where witness worked, ana h«d called him a "waster," and said he was "the :cum of the earth." Un January 28tu he had been riding on his bicycle over the Fitzgerald avenue bridge when lie again saw Mrs Bellingham. He raised his hat, unci the lady rushed VJ> to him and said, "if you come along to my place you will get all you want." Witness refused the invitation, and was called a "coward." He. tried to escape, out Mrs Bellingham had threatened him and hit him with her lists.! He' walked along the road, with the lady swearin" behind him. "Jt went to get on my bike,", said Harris, "when she lashed out and got ine one behind the ear, and wita that I got awav." Another assault was made on him on February 11th at' 6 pvm. He had just come out of the store <ai.the corner of Armagh street and Fitzgerald avenue, where he hRd bought some papers, when Mr and. Mr 3 Bellingham rushed at him. lhe man struck him_ and hiß wife advised him to "get into him" and give witness "a damned good hiding/' Both defendants had struck and kicked him. Witness was subject •to fit«. . Defendants alleged that complainant put his fingers to his nose whenever he saw them, and openly defied them. He oontinualiy rode up 'and down past their houfie, and would not keep, away from the girl. He had also returned a letter, which he had aised for a disgusting purpose, to thS girl. -- jQefendpnta were each fined £l. The-'Bench held that complainant's action in regard to the letter waa deplorable, but defendants should not have taken the law into their ojyn hand*. DIS MISSED. Marie Renaud (Mr C. S. Thomas), aged 65 years, proceeded against Madeline Elizabeth Din (Mr A. W. 3rown) for sureties to bind her to keep the peace. Plaintiff alleged that defendant and her children, who lived next door, were always insulting her and ;throwing stones at her. On February 16th Mis Din had 00-me into complainant's house and assaulted her by knocking her down, by trying to goug» out her eyes, and by j trying to strangle her with a, l table-cloth. (Defendant hod a!»o punched her and puliftd out some of her hair (produced). Defendant said complainant called her children "half-caste niggers" and : other names. She went to Mrs Renaud's i house, and was attacked by complainant and another woman, who damaged her to such an extent that she was still receiving hospital treatment. j The Bench wore of the opinion that the

The information was dismissed. (Before Mr H. W. THEFT. UTorenoe Nicholl, aged 13 jw*». t- ?—T with hiving etolen at Plimmerton, »W wriptlet watch and «"tho property o£ Eva Cmmwti ««a tho girl btd , r Bf'kvinff at PJimmerton when the watch w mfced. She had denied all the theft, and her conduct had led an • eirl <0 bo suspected. She haa S.-1W admitted she stole the article. The girl cad evidently been h*xmg a fly round rt | h .aid the girl hed left horn. IJSSgrisirawsi won provided ehe stayed in the Salvation »L,y Home in tho meantime. A VALUELESS CHEQTJK. 1 Leo Feeney, aged 25 years (Mr W. J. Oracroft Wilson), pleaded guilty to a charge of having, on February 16th, obtained by a certain false pretence to wit, ageless ?heoue from William Costello, goods and money to tho value of £2O. , , Chief-Detective Cameron said accused went into complainant's shop and obtained a suit of clothes, by presenting a. cheque on the Bank of New Zealand at Te Aroha, when he had no account there. Detective Newman said accused stated at first that Costello filled in the cheque and that he <nlv k™ n <i mc ,™V , Af " r : wards, in a statement (produced) hj» pleaded guilty' to the charge. The Magistrate said it •was evidently an isolated case, as nothing else was known about accused. _ Mr Wilson said accused had been, milking at' Te Aroha. Ho had come to Christchurch nr.d had got into undesirable company. He had been drinking more than he should. The Magistrate admitted him to probation for two years, on condition that, he abstained f*om Jiquor and paid the £2O off by monthly instalments of £l. IN OTHER PLACES. TTAPIER CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (FRE3S ASSOCIATION TSLIGRAM ' NAPIKR, March 1. In the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Seed, Morgan Davies, who had been found guilty of manslaughter, came up for sentence. Davies, while driving a ■nlotorcar at Karamu bridge, in the vicinity of Hastings, knocked down and killed a boy named Robert Frederick Allen. He did not stop at the time of the accident, and it waa some days before the police were abl® to locate the driver of the car. Davies w«s admitted to probation for three years, during which time he is to be prohibited and must not drive a car. His Honour said he was satisfied accused was drunk at the time of the accident, when he failed to stop after ■knocking. the child down. The jury's recommendation to jnercy had persuaded him to'admit the prisoner to probation. BUILDING- SOCIETY AND STAMP DUTY. '•FECIAL TO "THK PRMB.") DUNEDIN, March 1. Mr Justice Sim gave judgment this morning in the case Dunedin Starr-Bowkett Building Society v. the Minister of Stamp Duties. The question to be determined on thiß appeal was whether the principal money secured by a mortgage to the Society was to be treated as £IOO or £125. The sum lent was £IOO, and the member covenanted "to pay to the Society the sum of £IOO and tho sum of £25 by way" of premium thereof, making together the sum of £125, by 323 fortnightly payments of 7s Bd each," to be made as specified. The Commissioner of Stamp® treated £123 as the principal nioney secured by the mortgage, and assessed the duty accordinely at 10s, under the seventh schedule to the Finance Act, 1915. . The Society claimed that this assessment was erroneous and contended that £IOO shouldho treated, as the principal money secured by the mortgage. ■ His Honour decided that in the present case the payment of the premium was not 'optional. It could not be regarded -as a payment in the natuT® of interest, and the only alternative seamed to be to treat it as a payment in"*th® nature of principal. It was properly treated in this way, he thought, by the Commissioner, and the assessment was accordingly confirmed and the appeal dismissed, with costs to the respondent. AN UNUSUAL CASE. (PBE3S i IfIOCIATJON TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, March 1. A divorce case, Florence Lucilla Mills v. Adam John Mills, electrical brush maker, Wellington, heard I .at the Supreme Court today, before Mr Juetice Hosking, presented a very unusual feature, the intervention of a woman as co-respondent on her own application. to appear as such. Mrs Agnes Watson Jackson, who .had beefi" accused of m!iisc<Jnduct with respondent, took this course to vindicate her honour, _ Every right of procedure, including the right to challenge jurors,, was accorded - her. Intervention was made under Section 24 of the Divorce Act. This is the only such case ever before the New Zealand' Supreme Court, and there has been only one such in England, namely, Bell v. Bell, in which -the alleged adultross was made corespondent on her own application. Mrs Jackson., a widow, had applied in Chambers for permission to intervene. A female detective, named Thomas, deposed to discovering the parties in a compromising position. - Presents of a silver cigarette oase and military hair brushes from Jackson to iespondent, and a seven years' old letter from her to him, beginning, "My Adam/ and ending "Yours always," were aiso main features of the case. The charges of misconduct were denied by both parties. Jadkson set up a circumstantial alibi, denying possession of the costume described by the detective. The case is unfinished.