LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 116, 8 February 1908, Page 7

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. ,

, , IN, CHAMBERS, f, • Honour Mr. Justico Cooper hold a > . . . Sitting,m Chambors yesterday. Y,. / Letters of .administration wero granted in t->v tholostate: of Thomas-Robert Macintosh, of :■ ' Tpiani, clerk (deceased).-' ; ■■■, V : Probata of; tho'wills of ilio: following do.leased, persons wero granted: 1 — Mary Ann Walker,c Graytown ;' Agncss Allison,: of East • Invereargill; • and 'Annio darko Jenkins, -of Wellington. • > , ■ J, .v ! : By ; consent nil order as pray ed/by'pltiin tiffs v relativo..to;a summons for.mtcrr'ojatonos -m. tho caso/ of It. H;' Fisher (Mr. Foll)v> 8.-'<Dwan : and another (Mr. t Young),..claim, rff' £101 18s. • 6d;•<for alleged" :■ brcach .of agreement. • i . appoint a,.guardian.ad litem V:/on,tho nibtioriiOf .-Mr'.; 'Kirlccaldie,'i ; Mlicitor, for plaintiffs, ~in ,thp' ; end-another.v.-Malcolm: , ; As; plamtift liad -not filpd adequate proof 1 in./support: of his, allegation that defendant V was j aoout'.to. leavo the i Dominion,- a ;motion V fors charging'tho order iusi- in. Tanner v.;. ivy, 'tpi'stand'over ■' ■ Act'and in re Motueka V' iCompany, an . order i as prayi>d.'(siibjeot to tho statutory'! • requiremeht-S' being carried 'out), with referr■ enco::tb/an application" to the . Court to con- ,- firm alterations 'toHho .memorandum'of as-1 . soijatioiv. of- tho': company/'/:- Mr. ißtown ap-1 peered r in suppoit.'. 1 -. "An'order;." as; asked''-was', mado ' jin - ro. a ; motion: for'ao.order .to<produce- a .prisoner as: ?. 8 '#itness in the case-Oi C. Feist and others , v (Mr.".Blair) <v.; John Judd: (Mr. Fell), specific :, ■ performance, .to' be heard' on February 13. 4lhodos' : and . another." (Mr.'• Hadficld) v. :, Moorhouso*(Mr. Chapman, K.C.). This was /,« -~: ' ; suniiho'ns f'as;'to', the \distribu-; . : : Hl6'fi'bf.%oii6ys'kT ( ising''.froni the'salo of .st^k. 1 ' .- ■ Ail - order - for 1 apportionment was made ;• costs "to b'o'lborno by the cstnto," . :. ■-' ' M^i6ns,for r tho.following .'. % ;;; v. Spenco.v. llaynor and another, and Watkins, Tyor,,and Tolan, Ltd.- v. Bolton/were ordorca ; cun|.y. ..Mr. Levvev afpcal-ed .ill-support. ~ • Application , was made to His Honour to ; , '•'•rfyiew;';thq' 1 decision of;'-,tK6*'Registrar' syifch gatd'itp'-tHoifek'hig-pf ,'ac'cbunts - iii'-.tho'-actioii loake V. Cloaki, -'Mr-' Skerrett,' apl : ■ poarcd .for -tho plftintiff; and Mr; Young lor ■ the;defendant. His 'Honour deoided to hear. / furthor. evidence oniTuosdav.next;'-■ " ... v 'On.'the motion of solicitor for plaintiffs, ;,; -Vli s f :' f6r';'" ; uf scoyory' and' r 'for; .!'''. were made m. the:case; 'Jimes' . , - (Mr. 7 Yoitng) v.; tho Wellington' (Jnitod ,i Furmtufe frudo Industrial Union:of i\VorkerS' } ; .'r• : abtiolifor -£100' dam- . ... V;. '-5-iV , exjnilsicin^a*nd>' for." an injunction J ' THE DIVORCE lAW AN IMPORTANT POINT '• •- Mr/P. Jacksoh; on behalf of llr. Wilford,'; i;fprj\leayeVto>serv6 li iii-'the. ■; suit Benton-Vi Benton out of . tho Ddmmion. , (>)Wnspl ,: : ; ment"ioried ,that" .respbhderit'' resided' :: :'-" ; at--^otth;^lolij6uriftVV®®d :; ;t-hlat*"p"eiitiorier had • been'domiciled:iu'tho:Domiiiion for over-two-' * ! :: His; Honour;: ln: granting 'tho application,' l I w-ould liko to pomt' out that it is a-questioil whether! ono a ,divorco-.suit, who.has ■ .' :' : ;orwer' : breom6 , . fully,by . Uio othor iJarJ,y; who .-has: becomo. .- drfmiciled^',in 'New Zealand • for .wpcrtod'V of' CoirfiSel J - Til fe - Arc fcr ktatcs vt h son' ' . who'hns;.:beoii:fdomioiled^.m,'.'Ncw.rl(Jealand'for' . ./ twffrycni'S'may present? arpotiiionfifor*divorce. V' 'Hi^Hpnourrvli'thoiight.l:/would-merition 'th-q'^poijft:-;.?;!JT-V- ---' :.' Counsel ::-I understand that/tho point»has > not 1 yet'-"been 'decided?. :■' - r :':\ '• ': '- •His 'H&nour: ■Lhatf* is, soy Respondent '.will . ~bo:."allqwJd 42 days- aftfer'.servico? of petition ; file ? and enter an'appearance; ' ' i i * CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION ( 'APPLICATION-FOR A SPECIAL JURY Mr.. Menteath, on behalf. of defendants int'thoVactiony-Heber-Brown v;, Heenan and , FroudOjiLtd.y a claim for. £1000 for personal : injuries;- ' applied .'for '.an',; 6rder grantingv;a ; special-jury. ; Counsel based-. his on:thohground .that : expert evidence . would ■ # ■ , ,be",tendered'on matters of a itechnical naturo ■ l which-ho: submitted' Could' be;niore convenif ■ 1 ently tried.beforo a special jury- than.boforo )••••". ' a common it-was alleged/ a . , . sustained severe'injuries through falling-in: ■ cohsetjuelico of. a piece of.' scaffolding giving «... • .- away,.; at .tho new; dostructor for which''tho . ;defendants ; wero tho "contractors.-," It would ' •; .bo' partl 'of defendant'srcase'that:the wood- . work on, which; plaintiff stood was not' part of?; a; scaffold,' -but was ■ used to support an : >. ■■ -•jron;.il'' ,, ita;durinfe:Coiistniotion,' 'and-'wamot. intended torbo' stood upon. . :It,was essential that. the. picco!'ofr timber ißhould] be thei'o , and :nobody, could haws.'mistaken it for . a part of tliQ,-,scaffolding;..; Counsel ar- . , .' , whether the pieco of ' , - . timber'.was.:a;sti;ut or a:part. of tho scaffold- ' ing, was'of/.altechnical naturo, and that.it , would bo necessary to call exports. He cited. a number of r cases in support 'of his contcntioii: t ' V'-r-" !■:* / ■ Mr.; Skprroy-,; K'.C.,, oil'belialf'of: plaintiff, > ;■ i opposed'.the ; application oil tho ground tli.it nothing, of a. technical nature'ardse\in the caso,, The caso for plaintiff wai that he was , properly ,there,, and that tho woodwork was s* negligently fastened. . : -His Honour said the matter, would be al- - . lowed to strand over until . Monday morning. • plain.tiff,i';iii: the, meantime, to file" additional < ' ' affidavits.,; 1 . '. . .'' , ~ THE' CIYIL LIST.' ORDER OF CASES. Their. Honours, j Justicos Cooper and Chapmaij, ; yesterday , settled, the . order in which : the,,;Cas6s. set down for hearing at tho Civil Sittings, whichj commence on Monday, will bo taken, as follow:—.. . ■ : ■ .. a'-a,(Before, a. .Judge alouo.) .. . - .Feb.,.lo.—Michael S, .Duffy-.v.. W. J. Har-' ;■■■ die,:£36o, tfagosiand-accounts.'. . , Philip H. Gosso, v. F..G; Bolton and an:.l ■ other, 1 partition, «tc. Feb..-.:!!;— John ,J H. Schmidt v.- Joseph Nathan*: and i Co., Ltd.; .. Walter• Thompson Brunton'and thu 'Makerua Estate Company, .accounts,'etc.' ■■ ,;A.- -• : . i Fob.-'rl2.—Jamos i, R.'i Foster; v.,. Arthur .. Whatloy, specific.performance,-and £790 and .: interest-. . v - V / . .Feb. 'l.l.—Joik's v. Gilmer, £445,' commis- ' Bipn idn, lease and purchaso. • ■■ , A...Ci' Fcist and others v. .John Judd, spe- * .. . oific-performance.-' > : ■. < ' (.Beforo; a enirtnioii jury of twelve.) ■ Fob; :13," provisionally.—Edward J. Scarlo v.,,Th.omas :P. ' Lyons, £1.000 damages for slandor. ...... ... / .. . , .. Fob.- . Brown v. 'Heenan; and Froude, .Ltd.,; £1000, or, £500 damages,' personal 1 injuries. ■ (Boforo a Judge alone.) • Plirenix ': Assurance ' Company v. United Assuranco Company, l Ltd;, £020 and interest duo on policy, or rectification of policy. Fob. 17. —Kirlicaldio and Stains,' Ltd., v. Collector of Customs, £25 45., duty overpaid. ■> 11. IT.' Vislicr v. T. 13. l)wau and another, £161 ISs. Bd., breach of. agreement., Fob. 19.—Uuvliss v. Carroll, £440| due under, a. licnnso. ■ Laud Company, Ltd:, v t. -lolui ,J. Uovd, 1 £27 9s. 7d,, due under; an - agroemiint ' • • lntinmtion war. received that the following oasis had boon settled :— Taur«: Wnitara v:■ T. H. Harvey, possession and £0(5 rentHarry..Pinny v. Alf. G. East, Francis E, East and Arthur J. East, £178 15s. and interest. . ! . , ..J . No iintos jwero fixed ;with regard to tho foUowini;.,eases: —. ./■. ■ • ■ . (lieforo ,a i Jud|jo alone!) ' H. Ada Smith: v. National Bank of New Zealand, accinmts, etc.

David JJawson'v. F. Loudoiv and another, cancellation of transfer, otc., £1400, and damages'. . • . W. R. Howard. v. David A. Eberlet, accounts, 'discontimiahco of partnership, otc. Tho Now Zealand Acetyleno Gas Lighting Company, Ltd., v. Frederick. Andrews and Charles It: Bailey, £103 lis.' 'id.-, interest on promissory note. .■■■ Wellington Loan Company, Ltd., v. Arthur A, K., Duncan, '£40, and interest on; promissory note. . . Alfred" Mitchell and Martha Leo v. James Chatham, specific performance. ,-Alexander Dunn v. Thomas P..Lyons, £112 12s. 2J on promissory note. - ; James Doylo v. Wellington United ■Furniture Trade Industrial ■ Union of : Workers, £100, damages for wrongful expulsion, /and mjunfction. . >■ E: W. Mills and Co., Ltd., v. New Zealand Twentieth Century Gas Company, Ltd., £286 185.'7 d., balarico of account. Fleming Ross v. Mic'hael Frain, £100, money paid; etc'. •• .■■ ■• ' ■ . lAlico-B, Sherwood v. William J. Parsons; £100, damago to property. ;. Phillip Connor, v.. Bessie Wilson, specific porformanco. > . Ernest. A. Birton v. -Fritz Jensen and othors, £442 16s. 10d;, accounts. i.lsaac,.v. Ludwig, £100 and interest duo under an agreement. .. . . V ■" . . . (Spccial Case.) ::Mayor,'Councillors and burgesses of the i Borough: of Foildmg.' v. the Feilding Gas Company, Ltd., injunction to restrain interfering' with streets, etc. ' IN DIYOECE The ' following cases w;ill bo . 1 heard before ;Miv, Justico Button, commencing on 'Feb- 1 ;ruary.l3:— i . Harnett Eliza Adsett v.'Thomas Adsctt, i dissolution. -,in. , ■: . • ,| Richard; Muir v. Alico.Muir, dissolution. : l Emberzmci Butt v. -Alfred George Butt, dissolution.- . '.:■. . Horace : George Livermoro-' r. Elizabeth Livermore,' restitution. •'■.;■ ;i.Arthur- - Thoiiias Livermore v. Elizabeth Livermoro, restitution. ' - ij Louisa Brieu v. Timothy : Edwin Brien, restitution. .• • ' .' . • • Sarah Barnes v. Harry Barnes; dissolution. . 'Charles Houiislow v. Amy Celonia Jane 'Coleman • Hounslow, dissolution.-' . John Ea.ton Deadman v: Eliza Jane Deadmari, restitution..- ; . William; Alex. Douglas r. Aimee Eunice D.ougliis-, restitution.'.,...;. ;. ~ . . : Toni ..Ellis> Mawby v. Norah Mawby. and Harry Mtakridge,, dissolution'., .: