THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17498, 5 July 1922, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. IN DIVOHCE. (Before his Honour Mr Justice Adams.) MARTELLI v. MARTrXLI. Horatio de CouToey Martdli petitioned for a divorce from Charlotte RobiueUa Maitaili. Mr F. D. Sargent appeared for tho petitioner and Mr W. J. Hunter, instructed by Mr R. W. Olliver, for the respondent. Mr Hunter stated that h,3 had been instructed to appear but to offer no opposition to the petition. Petitioner, n, clerk, of Wellington, gave evidence that the marriage took plaoe on March Crd, 1916. Their married life was very unhappy, and they had agrcd, in November, 1917, to separate. Petitioner sent maintenance to hia wife, who went t.-> Wcstpfirt. One attempt at reconciliation by a Wellington solicitor had come to nothing. His wife had left him voluntarily.'The child was still in her care. Alfred Henry Barnett, solicitor, of Wellington, stated that Mrs Martelli came to ec« him on June llth, 1919, with tb? object of effecting a reconciliation between the husband and hcrii?lf. Nothing, however, had resulted. Petitioner had not been proceeded against for maintenance. Mr Hunter admitted that the parties had not lived together for upwards of three years prior to the filing of the petition. He asked that the custody cf the child ehould be given to the wife if the decroe was made. A decree nisi was grftnted, to be. made absoluto after three ■ months. By consent, petitioner was ordered to pay iho costs, £ls. CIVIL SITTINGS. DISPUTED WILL. Further hearing was taken' 5n connexion with the interpretation of thp will of William Hoban, a Chrifitchurch lawyer. After the arguments of, Mr. Donnelly and Mr Alners had been read, his Honour reserved his decision. MAGISTERIAL. TUESDAY. (Before Mr H. Y. Widdowson, S.M.) • DRUNKENNESS. Two first offenders were each fined" 10s, in default 24 hours' imprisonment. ' REMANDED. William Montent, aliae Claude Randolph Marmont, was charged that on May 26th, at Otautau, by a certain false, pratenc*, to wit by falsely representing that he was J. W. Smith, and was purchasing a farm from W. Poultney, he obtained from Thomas Duncan O'Rourke, the sum of £1 6s, and that on February 15th, with intent' to defraud, to wit by- stating he bad a farm and could sell it, obtained from Mrs Lily Dunoau the sum of 15s. On the application of Chief Detecttre A. Cameron, accused was remandted until tOiday MAINTENANCE. For dißobedipnco of a maintenance order in respect of his wife, Douglas Scott was convicted and sentenced to M days' imprisonment, release to follow on tho payment ol £6 2a arrears. William Forsyth, for disobeying a' maintenance order in respect of an illegitimate child, was provisionally sentenced to three months' imprisonment. For a similar offence, Robert Henry Edgoworth was provisionally sentenced to three months' inlprisoninent. Harold C. Davy was adjudged the father of am illegitimate child and ordered to pay maintenance at tho rate of 5s per week, and espene.es. E-velyn Gertrude Hamblin (Mr R. Twyneham) proceeded against. Cecil Hamblin, butcher (Mr W. F/Tracyf for sep%ation, maintenance, and guardianship orders, on, the grounds of persistent cruelty. Mr Twyneham said complainant had been married when she waß 16 years of age. She was now 22 years old. Defendant had often used abusive language to her and he had been guilty of physical cruelty. Ho was a butcher by trade, but he carried or* a horse clipping business, and his wife was made to turn. the handle of the clipping machinp. The clipping business was carried on on Sundays and holidays, and his wife was an absoluto drudge. On one ocpasion defendant had caught her by the throat. She had bePn forced to work in places whero no women should go. ,;. v . After hearing the evidence the SUgistrato eaid it waa unsatisfactory. No orcicr would be made, and the information would be dis-|-missed without prejudice. | KAIAPOI. (Before Mr Wyvern Wilsoit, S.M.) I In re E. K. Haskell v. W. Hrfl, claim £123 [ Bd, judgment was given for the plaintiff by default, with cost Bs. / ~ IN OTHER PLACES. APPEAL COURT. (?BI3SS ASSOCIATION TELfiJBAM.) WELLINGTON, July 4. The first cose taTcen by the Appeal t Court wm the Wellington City Corporation v. the Wellington. Milk Vendors' Association, an appeal against the decision of Mr Justice Reed in awarding the company £6BO damages for alleged breach of contract by the Corporation to Biippiy the company with milk and cream. For the Corporation it fa contended that it waa freed from liability bv » clause in the contract providing that the supply should depend on certain contingencies. Faraera would not sunply the Corporation, and this, it was claimed, released them from liability. Counsel for the Corporation dealt with the facta lit length to support the contention that J it had been prevented from carrying ous its ; contracts by causes beyond its control. At the conclusion, of his argument the proceedings were adjourned.