SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 467, 27 March 1909, Page 12

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. A sitting in Chambers was held by Mr. Justico Cooper yesterday. PROBATES AND ADMINISTRATION. Probate was granted of the wills of the following deceased persons: Charles Deans, farmer, Winton; Henry Jas. Underwood, settler, Wellington; Michael John Staunton, postmaster, Vaipawa; Emma Linderloff, otherwise Emma Mickelsson, Wellington; John M'Culloch, county clerk, Lovin; Georgo Reynolds, Featherstono (re-grant); Sidney Bucldand Harris, storekeeper, Little River; Emma Jano Brougham, married woman, Palmerston North; Helena Bridget M'Enroo, spinster, Wellington; David Henderson, miner, Quecnstown; Martha M'Master, widow, Dunedin; and Donald Munro Martin, bank clerk, WellingtonLetters -of administration were granted in respect of tho estates of tho following deceased persons: Samuol Hcdley, engineer, New Plymouth; Jas. Kilpatrick, farmer, Christohurch; Sarah Jano Stewart, married woman, Perks; James Craig, telegraph linesman, Mauka; Norman Lewis Moseley, insurance clerk, Wellington; Albert Georgo Loosemoro, mariner, Wellington; Maua M'jlanus, married woman, Lower Hutt; Frances Fulton, contractor, Waiwora'South; Michael Robertson, saddler, Cliristchurch; Robert Hyde, butcher, Christchurch; Edward Thos] Coumbe, grocer's assistant, Greymouth; Thos. Carmody, farmer, Kaiwarra; Frances James Driscoll, officer, Wellington; Henry Edsall, gumdigger, Swanson; and Edmund Ashby Elan, farmer, Dovedalo. PARIHAKA NATIVES. Application was mado for an order directing that the sum of £1000, together with any interest that had accrued, being compensation money paid by the Crown to 'I'O Public Trust Office in respect of land taken at Belmont for railway purposes, lie paid to Epariama Takarangi and Tupoki Takarangi, of Parihaka. Tho grounds on which it wu brought were that Thos. Price, 'ato of Petone, timber merchant, deceased, by deed dated August 5, 1903, had mortgaged tho land to the Natives to sccuro payment of tho principal sum of £2000, and interest; and that Thomas l'rico and Company, Ltd., who had purchased tho lands from tho deceased, were desirous that tho compensation moneys and interest should be paid t-o tho Natives in reduction of tho mortgage. His Honour remarked that a long time had elapsed since tho money bocame available for tho purpose. Mr. Beere, who appeared in support of tho application, said that up to tho present tho Natives had refused to accept the moneys. "Tho Natives are Parihaka Natives," added counsel. His Honour: "Noifr that To Whiti is dead tho Natives appear to bo waking up.". Ho ordered that tho matter should stand over until tho Crown Solicitor returned from the South. LUNATICS INSURANCE POLICY. Directions were applied for by tho Public Trustee as to an interesting question arising under tho Lunatics Act, 1908._ It appears that, in 1880, one John. Francis Bornadotto Suisted, of Wellington, clerk, was committed to a public asylum. Suisted, who is at present an iumato of tho Hokitika asylum, is an incurablo lunatic. Ho is a bachelor and 72 years of ago. On December 12, 1870, ho effected an insurance policy on his Ufo with tho A.M.P. Society, the surrender valuo of which, at tho present time, was £1106. His brother, James Samuol Suistod, of Westport, has paid on account of his maintenance and insurance premiums £1148. In March, 1880, a number of tho nest of kin of tho lunatic entered into a family arrangement to reimburse tho brother out. of the estate upoii his 1 death. For private, reasons,, the., brother ~is desirous of having the policy 'assigned t«"liim' r n's recompense for his past and present expenditure. I'lio only person capable of giving an assignment is tie Publio Trustee. On his behalf, Mr. J. W. Macdonald asked for directions and sanction as to the arrangement. His Honour deferred consideration of tho application for four weeks.

IMPORTANT POINT IN DIVORCE LAW. An important point in divorco law was involved in two matters which were then mentioned. The first was that of Edwin Hubbard, of Wellington (petitioner), v. Eliza Hubbard, of Leicestershire and Arthur Sackvillo (co-respondont)! This was an application for leave to serve respondent and co-respondent with citation and copy of petition beyorid tho Dominion. _ Outlining tho facts, Mr. Jackson, for petitioner, said that the parties wcro married at Home. Petitioner had resided in New Zealand some eight years; but respondent had never been in tho Dominion. It was alleged that respondent was guilty of desertion beforo petitioner left England, and of adultery subsequently. His Honour said that it was a question whether ho had jurisdiction to grant tho application. Tho point had been in the minds of tho judges on more than one occasion, although it had never arisen for decision. Tho only ground upon which the Court might have jurisdiction would be that the wire's domicile had been attracted by that of her husband. If ho made an order it would bo without prejudice to tho right of respondent and co-respondent to raise tho question of jurisdiction. Ho did not see how the papers could bo served on co-respondent at all.

Mr. Jackson: Can't you make an order for service on respondent? His Honour: Not unless you can show on what ground I ought to dispense with service on co-respondent. Where respondent is a woman co-respondent must bo served unless the Court authorises his omission from tho suit. A very important question is involved in tho application. Mr. Jackson: I always thought that a husband's domicilo was that of his wife.

His Honour: If a husband'turns his wife out, his domicile docs' not attract her. I think you will find that a judgo of tho Divorco Division in New South Wales has refused to exercise jurisdiction whoro one of the parties has never resided in that State. and where the matrimonial offonco occurred in another country. The other suit was that of Martha Walker (petitioner) v. John Walker, of. Queensland (respondent)—a potition for divorco on tho ground of alleged misconduct in Queensland. His Honour expressed tho opinion that tho Court having jurisdiction was tho Court of tho husband's domicilo. If a Court incautiously granted a decreo it would bo a very serious matter.

Mr. O'Regan, who represented tho petitioner, cited Dicey on Conflict of Laws to show that, in view of contradictory decisions, it was probable that the Court would not press to its fullest conclusion tho legal fiction that a wife always had her husband's domicile

His Honour said that ho would defer consideration of the point, and counsel might in the nie.intinio look up authorities.