THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20088, 18 November 1930, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. MO.NDA\ . Before Mr Justice CLAIM UNDER WILL, ! A claim for the payment o: , ) 1 and interest bequeathed under tho v-i'lT' 1 '""- Hurd, ionnerly of Chrbtchurch ''—hi died in 1310. wao beard in the Supreme «• Ails* Jroila Greenwood. Chn»tchu-rii sp: netcr, proceeded Wan Is iivrd of Chrwtchurch retired c li; ~,ntrr and Catherine Ooticr, of Christchurch, snnetei, for the fi'im of £1(';0; ay I( ? interest compounded from tho date of the death of the testatrix, or, in the e!l*rnat the amount, of profit.B by the defendant lluu-' Lv the use of the legacy. j Mr F. S. Wilding, a> 4 d */itb him .v'r * C. Perry, appeared for tbr» plaintiff, Mr t\ I V. Quigley for the defendant Kurd, and i Mr D. E. Wanklyn for the defendant Coker. ' The statement o: claim set out- that tho | defendants wer-i the trustees and executors of tbe will of Liz-tin Hurd, formerly of Ukriatchurch, wife of the defendant.. Frank Hurd, testatrix "bavin;,; died in 1910. Th.* teatatrix bequeathed to tbo plaintiff the j 1 sure of £U>O free of legacy duty ;f | when eho should attain the of yea>3 ' I By her will the testatrix declared that ' her trustees frhould in their ab*olut& d:&- ' cic-tion apply all or any part of the income | o'i the expectant _ share ''or tbo tim-> !>.-•; n ? i of any pereon interested under Ler viij,' for his or ber maintena net:, education, or ! support in hie, or otherw.-e for the bonent j of the same j.erson; and pay the earne to any of th« guardians of such oer- i eon for that pirpobe without to \hu 1 application thereof, and should accumulate ! the reoidue (if any) or such income at compound interest by investments pursuant to tho trust for investment- therein contwined tn augmentation of tho share from which the same should have proceeded; but might in their abooJute discretion reßort to any such accumulations for the ruain'en-n-nce, education, support in life, or other xviao for tbo benefit of uny person for tb# ti Tu being presumptively entitled thereto The efetato of tho testatrix was certified to be of the value of ,£3487 83 od, and the plaintiff, on attaining the ago of 21, during tbe year IctoO, had not b<*nu paid the amount of tbe legacy or any part thereof by the i defendants It. was etated ibat the defendj ant Hurd bad rotained the amount of the legacy in his own nanda, and had refuged to supply accounts of profit made by him by bis retention of the 'ogaev. Defendants, it was claimed, had refused to supply tuc 1 p-aintiff with any particulars or accounts j of thpir administration of tbo said estate Ic his statement of defence, Hurd adnutted that the plaintiff had not b*oen paid the amount of the legacy, but stated that : 01: October 1 Ft, 1930, defendant tendered | £2l2' to the plaintiff and this was refused as bring insufficient. The defendant eaid , that he ha-d such information to thf plaintiff as bo had been able to five Alter tho. Lrarjng of the cabc had been takr;n in the n;ornin?, counsel for the partics came to on agreement the Jtinch- 1 eon adjournment, and the dispute was | sott'ed out of Cour*. ' | MAGISTERIAL. ,}jel'>re j'r D. Llon.'ey, S.LI. TKAKFIC C ; lor parkins: over lh*j :inie-!irnit, •• red*-r:ck Amor wfjK lined 5» and Albert AJdridge l!Urj ar<d costs, Peter P. J. Auiod»»'j ICa without coasts, (iraham I.eDneit i ~tb nad costi-, Frederick A. JU6 aod co*le. Arthur George Palmer 10s and costs, Francis W Voun? 10s end cost*, Wiilioui juu., 10s and cobts, i'rauk H. Suckling an«i COGIB. j For having r.o side-lamp Kcitr.e:h v/st. fined 1 Oei and co^ts. Fol" having ur.ticcn.sed r;iot<>r-iorr:>3 Frederick S. was fined and costH, Samuel Craig and coati, John TJioiohk Gallagher A'l and costs, Isaac Geoffrey Wji-tkins £2 ami coeta on each of mo cL argrs, and Hectc-r Hubbard £0 and cost- j . For driving in a manner dangero'Jß to the pubtir, William Lionel Cranliehi wsp ordered to pay costs only, and Alfred Harris was nnnd i!2 and costw. For having driver's lirente, IUroU Cumberworth «as fined 3 0s and costs, John Gavin Malcoltnfion 10s and Co6ti>, and Julian K. Woolridjje 30s and cofct?, while James Kenueth Malcolm waj» tined 3 0s and costs for failing to produce his license. Joseph Lambcrion was fined r>os and costs ioy cuttiDj? a dome, James COs and costs for failing to a fjrn to the right, Ch&rles il. Saunders and costfi for failing to ffiv© w«y, Robert I/. Saundfr.- 10s and co«%t« for stopping a v<»hielo when not alongside the Jcorb. aod Frank Dykes 10s and costu for cycling without a light. Frank Webb, for driving a :notor-cy?!e at a dangerous speed, was fined £.2 and cost*. DISTURBAN'CK IN STREET. Jumei Edward McKay, a labourer, aged 27, for whom Mr R. Twynehacu appeared, pleaded not guilty to a charge that on November 35th h© struck another person i-.i Manchester atrftet. Alfred- Lanylcy Phillip <Jibben#», h carpenter, charged that on November 3 sth he used threatening behaviour i-i Casbei .street. Ho pleaded not guilty. Sub-Inspeclor O'llara nnid ih.-it there had been an altercation at the corner of Manstreet and Hereford street, and defendant, Gibbeo.«, was alleged to have made remarks to McKay which resulted in McKay hitting" him aod knocking Mm down. It was also alleged that prior to this accused Gibbens had struck another man and possibly this had had something to do with the later altercation. Clifford Arthur Goodwin be had eoen some men at tbo corner, and one of them, McKay, had given auother a blow, causing him to fall. He had not heard what was said, but when he-first mw them arguing the point he thought it looked as though ther«i was going to bo a fight. William Dempsey paid that everything had happened quickly. He had not seen the man Gibbens do anything before being struck. Afterwards tbe others had said that they had ''better get,'' and witness had taken charge of Gibbens. A constable gave evidence concerning the arrest of McKay, who had admitted striking Gibbens, but who claimed to have been proroked. Mr Twyneham Eaid that McKay had first of all gpokco to Gihbens for hitting a man named Eastwick. There had been no further trouble then, but when Gibbens next saw McKay he used insulting language and struck him. McKay had theu hit him in self-defence. McKay gave similar evidence, and Gib« bens denied having used any bad language. % Each accused was fined X 3 and costs, in default 14 days' imprisonment, seven days boing allowed in which to pay. REMANDED. Arthur Ernest McGinn, a salesman. aged 45, of no fixed abode, was charged that on or about October loth, and on other dates between September 27th and November 14th, he received sums of money totalling £l3 10s, on terms requiring him to account for and pay it. to Philip Spence Bctt, of Dunedin, and fraudulently omitted to do so. On the application of Chief-Detectivo J. Carroll, a remand was granted until Wednesday at Dunedin. MAINTENANCE CASE,S. (.Before Mr H. P. Lawry, On a complaint, for the variation of a maiuorder agkinst David Henry Aitke.n, arrears were reduced to i'2o, to be payable at the rate of 5s per week. For disobedience of a maintenance cider, Ernest Hamill was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment., the issue of the warrn-nt to be suapended provided arrears are paid off at the rate of 2s 6d per week in. addition to tbe amount of the current order. On a similar charge Frederick William Baas wen couvicted and fined £O. Robert Dick (Mr M W„ SimerO appeared 00 a charge of disobedience ola» maintenance order, but the charge was dismissed. He also proceeded against Ruby Stella Brown for a variation of the order, arrears beings remitted and the order being reduced to 5s per v.-eek for six mouths, the position to be then reviewed. Milton Kershaw, whose arrears amounted to £215 Cs. was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment for disobedience of a maintenance order, tbe issue of the warrant to be suspended provided the arrears are paid off at tho rate of 6d per week in addition to the amount of the current order. ■ A similar charge against Charles Hibbert Steel was dismissed. Lawrence Chapman Withers, who did not j appear, was sentenced to three months' im- t prisonment for disobedience of a maintenance j orderT the issue of tho warfant to be sus- | pende'd provided arrears are paid off at tho | rate of 2s 6d per week in addition to the f amount of the current order. ( John Arthur Saunders made a complaint, | which w.rs oppOEed by Efrie Doris Gibson (Mr F P. HiM), for a variation of a maintenance j order The ardor uas reduced by allowing £4 reduction of tbe arrears. j Mary Ann Gordon (Mr K. ' . Archer) pro- j ceeded George Henry Gordon for a [ maintenance and separation order, persist- ( ent cruelty being alleged, and also that de- ? fondant va« an habitual inebriate. Separa- ? tion'wA*. granted on the grounds of inebriety. | a maintenance order for £2 being made. • For disobedience of a maintenance order, j James William 'Henry Hoskins was convicted

and ordered to come up f"r sentence on January 2Ctb, 1031. Charles Albert Orrnond Keasst, being a near relative of a destitute person, was ordered to pay 7s 0d per for maintenance. The charge of disobedience of a maintenance order against D&vid Russell Thompson was dismissed. William Packwood Hifford, for disobedience of a maintenance order, was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment, the issue of the warrant to be suspended provided arrears are paid off at the rate of 5s per week in addition to the amount of the current order.