THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXV, Issue 19727, 18 September 1929, Page 5

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

(Before his Honour Mr Justice Kenn FAMILY PROTECTION ACT. _ Hii Honour gave reserved J^ mell 1J ) the case of Catherine Sheehan, flfi - a jnst the rick Sheehan. labourer, Eiffelton, Public Trustee, in respect of jra.menance and support from the estate D i ain tiff Davidson, deceased, father of the plaintiff. At the hearing on September 10th Mr A. W. Brown appeared for the P T "~ tee Mr R. A. Cuthbert for *•, Pub ''S as executor of the estate °' A a *_ r Patrick son. deceased; Mr M. J- to" and Mary Sheehan, as infant children of tte plaintiff, and Mr P. S. Wild.ng for the Bank of Australasia. , Plaintiff made application for an order to extend the time to make application for further provision under the Fan " ly F r °*ifsl tion /ct, 1908, and for an order that further provision be made under that Act. "On the present application for an extension of time," said his Honour in £>▼>*£ judgment, * the Court had before it all the evidence to be tendered on the substantive application, and that evidence has been referred to. The circumstances are that the testator died on September 24th, ai jd probate of his will was granted to the Public Trustee on May 11th, 1922. P re ' sent application was not filed until November 22nd, 1928, more than six years after the grant of probate, and more than Pe 2J® n years after the death of the testator, ihe reason given for the delay until ' 1926, is that a farm property in which the applicant's husband held one moiety and upon which a partnership business was ca ** ried on by Davidson and P. M. an & Sheehan, had dropped in value. As the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the residue, she was unaware, until the sale in August, 1926, of what the provision in the testator's will would amount to. # "Nowhere is it suggested that the plaintiff was ignorant of her rights under the Family Protection Act, 1908. She and her husband bought the estate's moiety in th« farm property in August, 1926, and, although one may hesitate to believe that she was unaware in a general way prior thereto of the effect of what was called "the slump" on values, and of its effect on her interest in the estate, yet it was no doubt true that a better sale was hoped for. But if it be accepted in fact that she believed she had an interest of some kind in the estate until August, 1926, and that she then for tho . first time became aware that the provision made for her by the will was valueless, that circumstance would justify the Court in granting the extension of time. The plaintiff should have applied with reasonable promptitude thereafter.." There had, continued his Honour, been j : long and unreasonable delay. "There was | no suggestion that the applicant or her hus band or her children were not in good health, and at the date of the application the applicant and her husband were able to make a living on the farm and were also able to save. Although the duty of a testator is not limited, where his estate permits it, to tho furnishing of a merely eleemosynary provision, it cannot be said that the affidavits disclose, when regard is b6d to the actual value of the testator's estate and tr> the other claims upon the testator, that he has been guilty of such a manifest breach of a moral obligation to make provi» sion for the maintenance and support of the applicant, that to refuse the application would result in a manifest injustice. At the highest the plaintiff's affidavits leave the moral duty, under the circumstances, in doubt." The application for extension of time was accordingly refused. The plaintiff was ordered to pay her own costs and also £lo 10s for costs and disbursement® of the Public Trustee, and also £5 5s for costs and disbursements to counsel who under direction of the Court appeared for the children of the applicant MAGISTERIAL. TUESDAY. (Before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M.) REMANDED. George Turner, a carrier aged 45, pleaded guilty to a charge of stealing a pair of hedgeclippers valued at 5s 6d, the property of Henry Cooper Smith. He was remanded for sentence until September 19th, bail being allowed, self £25 and a surety of £25. A E Watson, aflas George William Laughton, an Australian, was charged with obtaining goods to the value of *3 Is by falsely representing his address as 184 Esplanade, New Brighton, and also by falsely representing a reference as genuine pnrporting to be signed by L. Archer, of 38 Bath street, Christchurch. He was remanded to appear on September 24th. CONDUCT AT BACH. Charles Edward Blacklock (Mr J. S. Bowie), a labourer, aged 23, was charged that being a person released on probation, he did fail to comply with the terms o£ his release. Evidence showed that Blacklock had been admitted to probation, with two others, for the theft of a motor-bicycle. He had paid well in restitution, but had failed to notify his change of address. Also his conduct had been disgraceful. Constable H. Irwin stated that Black'ock had been at a bach in New Brighton on several occasions, day and night, with young men and young women friends during the last three weeks. Parties had been held there, and drinking and disgraceful conduct had been going on which had led to a complaint being made by neighbours. Black lock had been renting the bach. Evidence of the shocking conduct going on at the bach was also given by a neighbour, whose name the Magistrate suppressed. Blacklock, giving evidence, said that he had only been to the bach on three occasions. His was only a third share in the renting of it. He added that if the constable said that he had been there on many occasions he was mistaken. "I am satisfied that this young man was living in the bach, and one does not like to think how he was running it," said Mr Levvey. "As a foretaste of what will happen to you if you continue your foolishness, I will sentence you to seven days and give you time to think this over. You must realise that I could have made that months. (Before Mr H. A. Young, S.M.) CIVIL BUSINESS. Judgment by default was given for the plaintiff in the following cases:—The National Mortgage and Agency Company of New Zealand, Ltd.. v. Gordon Blair. £26 lis 6d; the Amalgamated Society of Carpenters' and Joiners, Joiners', t Machinists', and Shipwrights' Industrial Union of Workers v. F. S. Dacre, 9s fid: A. E. Hope v. Robert Hawthorne, £3 17s; H. B. Jones and Company v. L. Kinnie, £4 10s; same v. J. Roberts, £5 6s; same v. M. Roberts, 7s i Mason, Struthers and Co., Ltd., v. Mrs M. Kennedy, £1 8s 6d; David Crozier, Limited, v. Arthur Walter Button, i' 4 17s 8d; Beath and Company, Ltd., v. R. H. Ford, £3 17s Id: Canterbury Bricklayers' Union v. J. Cox, 10s-: the Riccarton Timber Co.. Ltd., v. S. M. Richardson, lis 3d: Edmund William Hall v. George Harris, possession of a tenement; the Christchurch Gas. Coal, and Coke Ltd.. v. Peter W, Cairns. £5 5s 6d; Bell Cycle Co., "Ltd., v. L. Paynton, £25; J. Ballantyne and Company, Ltd., v. C. Geoghegan, £4 2s 6d.; Andrews, Baty and Co., Ltd., v. R. H. Gregson. £2 12s 6d; same v. J. R. Hall. £1 17s 6d; the Mnyor, Councillors, and Burgesses of the Borough of Sumner v. H. C. Yates, £9 16s 9d; C. S, Thomas v. Mrs Ada Teith, £1 11* fid: the Christchurch Press Company, Ltd.. v. Cyril John Noran, £3 9s: same v. James Galbraith Wade, i'l 3s: R. A. Stanlake v. A T. Smith, £3 2s id, K. A. Hore and W. Mul'.ane (trad ing as Dominion Rubber Supplies) v. A. T. Black-well. £3 19s: Royds Motors, Ltd., v. T. Stack, £4 14s: Royds Bros, and Kirk, Ltd., v. Thomas Stack and Mrs Margaret Stack. £l2l 10s Id: National Mortgage and Agency Co., Ltd.. v. L. Clinton. £5 12s sd; Turn bull and Jones, Ltd., v. Mrs J. Thompson. 16s 6d; Ashbv, Bergh and Co.. Ltd.. v. H. Brandon. £5 15s 3d; the Trade Auxiliary Co. of New Zealand, Ltd., v. T. M. Jinners and Co., £4 10? 9d: same v. C. Wray, £1 5s 4d• E. F. G. Manning v. A. F. Manning., £lB ss: George Batstone v. James Kay, £8 6s 2d: R. Hannah and Co., Ltd., v. W C. S. Williams, £2 2s: David Ellwood v. William Thomas Hines, £9 ss: Francis W. Tindall Eric M. Scott and Iris V. Scott, £7 10s and possession of a tenement. JUDGMENT SUMMONSES. C. Sutton was ordered to pay the NewZealand Plumbers' and Gasfitters" Industrial Association of Workers the sum of £5 16s 9d forthwith, in default seven days' imprisonment. , . , _ W Hume was ordered to pay E. Blair the sum of £2 Us 8d forthwith, in default three days' imprisonment. (Before Mr E. C. Levvey, S.M.) CLAIM FOR BALANCE OWING. D N Adams, Ltd.. of Christchurch, printers and manufacturing stationers (M.r Penlington), claimed from C L, Meredith and Co., Ltd., merchants, of (Mr Emslie), the sum of £37 14s 9d, alleged to be owing bv defendant to plaintiff for stationery supr'ied and delivered, arrears of instalments of hire of a typewriter, and solicitor's costs Judgment for the plaintiff, with costs, was given for £3O 7s.