IN BANCO.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 294, 5 September 1908, Page 9

IN BANCO.

A PALMERSTON NORTH CASE. POSSESSION OF A PROPERTY. Argument with respect to the case of Elizabeth Ewart and John H. Hankin (plaintiffs) v. Elizabeth Sheerin (defendant) was heard by Mr. Justice Cooper yesterday. '' Mr. Fair appeared on; behalf of -the plaintiffs, and Mr. Meatyard, of Palmerston North, for tho defendant. This was an originating summons to obtain possession of a house and land at Palmerston North belonging to the plaintiff Ewart. Plaintiff Hankin had been the mort> gagee of the land when defendant was the owner of it, and had sold under his mortgage and executed a transfer to plaintiff Ewart. ' Defendant remained in possession and refused to give up occupation or vacate the premises. Plaintiffs "now . sought an order requiring defendant to give, up possession. - On behalf of defendant it was contended' that it was necessary for a guardian ,ad litem to bo appointed before defendant, _who was a married woman, - could be proceeded against. ~ . His Honour- said that under Women's Property Act, 1884, a married woman could sue or be ..sued without the joining of her husband and without a guardian ad litem being appointed.' The words in the Act had a very wide effect, and entitled a married woman..-to sue or be sued; in respect of any. matter- that ; a man could siie or be sued for. Defendant was holding certain property that did not belong to her. He mado an order requiring defendant to delivor np the property to Hankin on or before September 21 by four, o'clock. No order was made as .to costs..

ADOPTION OF A CHILD. : APPEAL DISMISSED. The case of Southerly James Curtis; of Alicetown, driver, and Emily Alice Curtis, his wife (appellants) v. Constable Johnson (respondent) was also heard. Mr. 'Dunn appeared for the appellants and Mr. Myers for the respondent. - Tho facts in this case were briefly as follow : Appellants were. proceeded against in the Magistrate's Court on a charge of having, on February 21, 1908, in payment of a consideration or reward, received into their care and charge an infant for the purpose of maintaning it apart from its parents for a longer period than seven consecutive days without being licensed as foster parents undor tho lufant Life Protection Act, 1907. Mr. Riddell, S.M., found that the following facts were proved or admitted That an order wa3 mado on February 21, 1908, enabling the appellants to adopt tho infant;;that a premium of £20 was paid on tho grant-; ing of the order of adoption ; that the infant was placed in the hands • of appellants; and that tho amount :of tho premium w.ls. spent on clothing and other necessaries for the child.. For tho defence it was argued that no license nor exemption from holding a license under tho Infant Life Protection Act was , required in ..tho "case" of "a person adopting a child under the Adoption of Children Act, 1895, if the. premium or consideration paid to the adopting parent was received solely for the_benefit of the child. His Worship held that, acceptance ;of any. premium, whether for the sole benefit of tho child or otherwise,- brought' appellants within the provisions of Section 4, Subsection 1, of the Infant Life Protection Act, 1907. Ho convicted them, but, as they-had acted bona: fide, and the case was a test one, imposed only a.nominal penalty of Is. against each, without costs. -

His Honour said the' provisions of the statute wero too coercive to enablo him to adopt the contentions of counsel for the appellants. To lys mind there could be. no question that the intention of the Legislature was that in the administration of the Infant Life Protection Act' every person . who had charge of an infant for the purpose of ■ nursing and maintaining it - apart from ... its natural parents or guardians for. a longer, period than seven consecutive days and who received payment .or reward •• in connection therewith should bo licensed. . He must, therefore, dismiss the appeal,, but in tho cii> cumstances would make no order as to costs. He would recommend Mr. Dunn, on behalf of tho appellants, to apply to tho Minister for a certificate of exemption.