SUPREME COURT

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21288, 6 October 1934, Page 5

SUPREME COURT

M AINTEN ANC "E ORDER DISPUTED OBJECTION" TO INCREASE MADE BY MAGISTRATE A case in which an appeal was made against the decision of a magistrate in increasing an order for maintenance occupied the Supreme Court throughout yesterday, and was unfinished when the court adjourned for his Honour Mr Justice Johnston to con-i sider part of the legal argument raised. Ernest Edward Edmonds was i the appellant and the respondent Ethel Maud Edmonds. Mr R. L. Saunders, appeared for the appellant and Mr W. i J. Hunter for the respondent. , It was stated, in evidence that the parties had been living apart for a number of years under a separation and maintenance order. On May 21, 1934, Ethel Maud Edmonds applied to Mr H. P. Lawry, S.M., to have the order increased, and also to have the charging order varied so as to charge the maintenance on certain proper*}'. Mr Lawry increased the order from £2 to £2 10s and varied the charging order by including in it a charge over property which Edmonds had pur-i chased at Breezes road, Christchurch, and also over a sum 'of £6OO in cash. Edmonds had admitted possession of .UIOOO to the magistrate, who had directed that. £6OO of that amount should be placed on deposit in Hie names of Messrs W. J. Hunter (solicitor for Mrs Edmonds) and R. L. Saunders 'solicitor for Edmonds) until it was applied to the rebuilding of the house on the property at Breezes road. Against those orders Edmonds appealed. Evidence was given by bofh appellant and respondent, and involved legal argument was submitted. The court adjourned to give the judge an opportunity to decide part of the legal argument before the case can be further argued, PARTNERS!!"* DISSOLVED A petition from Phillip Henry Hathaway (Mr C. S. Thomas; against Market Gardens, Christchurch, Ltd., seeking dissolution of a partnership, was givnted with costs, £lO 10s, allowed to Lathaway. His Honour, Mr Justice .John.slon heard the case. In evidence, plaintiff said that in June, 193.''. he had signed an agreement of partnership with defendant company. He had considered the agreement one of employment only, but. had found in June, 1934, that it was one of partnership. lit the recital to the document lie had signed the period staled was 12 months, but ho had found that in the operative section of it there was no such mention. His Honour agreed to plaintiff's request that an order be made winding uij the partnership as from January 20, 1934. the accounts to be taken up to that date and plaintiff to be allowed £lO 10s costs.