LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1305, 7 December 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COUKT. DISPUTE OVER A CONTRACT, DID HE SIGN AS AGENT? I'ersox.u, ],ianu.i'i'v j)i;xii:i>. A civil action involving some points of interest was heard in (lie Supreme Court yesterday afteruo.in More the Chief .lustice (Sir Kobert Stout). This was a imm' in which J. and A. Wilson, contractors, of Wellington, sued C. .1. ,S. llarcoiirl, land and es'.iilo agent, of Wellington, to recover tho sum of -CIO4 3s. Id., balance alleged to be duo under a building eontract.

Mr. C. B. Morison, instructed by Mr. A. Gray, appeared lor tho plaint ill's, J. and A. Wilson, and Mr. A. W. Ulnir for tho defendant, C. J. S. Jlarcourt.

Briefly tho particulars set out in the statement of claim wero that J. nnd A. Wilson had entered into n contract with C.- J. S. Harcourt to- erect a dwelling in Southampton Street, Hastings, tho contract'price being .Kl-100. J. mid A. Wilson had erected the building, with certain extras agreed upon, these costing .fii7B 9s. 2d. 'this had brought tho price up to J21778 Bs. 2d. A certain allowance, however, had been made tor omissions, and after that the net total was JilTiil 14s. lid. From time to time payments had been received from C-. .T. S. liarcourt, these amounting to 411385 lis. 10d„ but there was still owing e. sum of .£360 os. Id. In addition to this amount .1. and A. Wilson claimed .£35 for preparing plans, and JC3 3s. for valuation fee.' The defence was a general denial by C. J. S. Harcourt. lie stated that in signing tho contract and in making the payments ho had been (as J. and A. Wilson well knew) acting as agent for Isabel Murray Petersen. He denied authorising any extras. In the alternative, C. J. 8. HaTcourt contended that the agreement was for a complete contract, and that J. and A. Wilson wero not entitled to recover until complete performance had been proved. It .was lurther contended that the agreement also provided that all disputes should be submitted to arbitration, and that J. and A. Wilson had not endeavoured to carry out this part of tho contract. A further defence was that'by delaying, these proceedings until after Airs. Petersen's bankruptcy had prejudiced the defence, J. anil A. Wilson wero not. entitled to recover.

Tho questions beforo tho Court yesterday were: —(1) Whether C. J. S. Harcourt was personally liable for the eonu'act sued upon. (2) If so, whether anything had occurred siuco tho ranking of the contract to release him • from liability. The Question of amount was to bo ailjusted bv the parties afterwards. The case had not ooncluded at 5 p.m. yesterday. The hearing'will bo'resumed this morning.

PIERRE CHAPLIN'S CLAIM. AGAINST HIS UNION. Tho Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) heard further evideneo yesterday morning in the case in which Pierre Chaplin, cook, of Wellington, sued W. T. \oung "(secretary) and the Wellington section of tiie Seamen's Union to recover .£l5O damages alleged to be due on account of injury suffered through tho defendants having interfered with Chaplin's employment, and for an injunction to restrain tho defendants from further interfering with his employment. Mr. T. Jl. \Viliord, with him Mr. P. Levi, appeared for Chaplin, while Jlr. C. If. JJix represented "l'oung and the Seamen's Union

Particulars of tbo case were published yesterday. Two more witnesses tendered evidence in support of plaintiff's ease, but as there was stiil ouo witness tor ths defence to be heard, an adjournment until neon on Friday was granted.

DIVORCE CAUSES. THE UNDEFENDED ACTIONS. In tho Supreme Court yesterday, before the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout) a number of undefended divorce petitions were dealt with.

George James Gardiner, blacksmith, prayed for a dissolution of bis marriage with Caroline Gardiner, oil the ground of misconduct. Kobert Wcods was cited as co-respondcnt. The parties were married on July 25, 1893, there rwing r.o issue. In April last, respondent left her husband and went to live with Woods in Kent Terrace. This sho admitted in writing. A dccree nisi was granted, to bo made absolute in three months. Mr. C. K. Dix appeared for the petitioner. George Tnomns Kellaway, labourer, of Wellington, asked for a divorce from Mary Kellawav, to whom he had been married at Ballara';. Victoria, in 1891. There were two children of the marriage. Tka proceedings were brought on the ground of misconduct, F. A. G. Williams being named as co-respindent. His Honour granted a decree nisi, this to be made absolute in three months. 3lr. H. E. Evans appeared for tho petitioner. .T as , tl: ? ?r° u "d oii which Mabel Wright asked that her marria-'° with Walter Wiliiam Wright should to (jKsjlved. Ino parties wero married cn -torch 10, 1900, but tho husband had never provided a home for his wife. Corrobciiatne evidence of tho desertion was iorthcoming, and a decree nisi was 'granted. this to be made abixiluto, in tliTe" months. Mr It. B. Williams appeared tor tho petitioner. Albert Swain sought dissolution of his marriage with Annie Swain on the ground of misconduct with H. H. Gregson! • Tho marriage took nhoe in ™, October 19, 190!,' and thire were Two c hi" "nd ~ J ' es "°" J . ent W!is now living i a iV.. i:h ii d , ecr(!c , nlsi ,vas sranled. p-'lition'r " a Pl'«ircd for the

Florence Celia Bord -ought dis.„l„(i o n of her marriage wiih C. I, F. Boyd on tno ground of misconduct. N 0 'co-res-pondent was mentioned, but evidence wa< Sw Z ld took place on October li, laftj, and'there v. as one child. A decree nisi was granted I" bo mode !llt in thmj B "titter ,lr ° nl aPsMreil ih <

Mr. T. C. A. Hi.slop represented Annio Maria Baksr, who sought dissolution if her marriage with Herbert James Baker on the ground of misconduct. The nar tns were married on March 15 1893 V decree nisi was granted to be made absolute in three months.

Kathleen Hilda Gril:g, of Warn*™..; h«r luisban'i Arthur Edward Grip-, baker's assistant, on tho ground of misconduct. Tho mar nagc took place on May 18, 1901, and there were two children. • A decree nisi was granted to bo made absolute in three months. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared lor tho petitioner. Albert George Vine, labourer, of Wellington, prayed for dissolution of h'ifi marriage with Mary Eva Vine on the ground of convictions for importuning The parties were married on April 25* 1301. A decrro nisi was granted, aflci' evidence had been tendered. Mr. I'. M Wilford appeared for tho petitioner.' Desertion and failure to maintain U 'w the grounds on which Annio l.enihari sought dissolution of her marriage with Thomas Lenilum. The parlies wen: married ?n Auckland on February j), Iflo.'l, and had lived together in Auckland until' November, 1 'Ml, since when iffitilionor had not heard from her husband. A d->-crce nisi was granted, this to bo mndo absolute in three months. Mr, j], Wilford appeared lor tlio potili'omrr. ' John Tfarlniv snwl for a divorce frnin Ida Agnes Harlow on the ground of de. sertion. The marriage look nlaeo on August IOOt, at Dnneilin, anil flm parties lived together for somi little ||t n( ,. There wero no ehililren. Jlesiioudfnt liaii subse(|iicntly declined |/j live wil.li her husband. A downs niii was granted. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for Un. tioner, and Mr. W. ,1. Cracrofl. Wilson for the respondent, but the pet if ion was not opiKised. A lira Colliorno Hiiight ilhorre from diaries Herbert Colliorno on I lie ground of desertion. Tlmjiartics were married on November 17, IST 1, ill. Wellington, nnd had resided logellier at I'aliner,•-ton Noilli and Upper Hull, until Ml, wln-ii le.vpoinlent left his witV. A dcerei nip| was granted, Mr. T. M. Wilford uppeareil tor the petitioner. Thonius Kngora K'&lls, nlglitwuLchm.ui, of Johnsonville, pctilioned for

lion of 111 . Iniiriliige Willi Dm Mf i» Kell-i oil llie ground el lie 'I I i"l'> 'Ih" parlies wrri' mimled n| t'nt< .mi tiele. licr 111, ISSt, 11111 l tlx I'll liuri'lhrl' ill I'nlen, UaliKiinili, Mini Wi'llililtl Hi, mill Ihi'fi" V.I'I'K lour I'lllMl'l'll .1 I lII' mull iii-tt', I"

S'.'pti'llll'lT, U'lM, I lie le".polt'!elll |HI In'l' hii-li.nxl, mill had ;.iiuv <l< 4'lhi' 'I I" ll*- 1 willi him, Mr, 'I'. M. Willenl n|>|n*ni«• I I'.T lhi> pel il ioIKT. \ lI.M- lilt' JM i in-i p»I «illli".s l> :l 11 lircli hi'iinl, 111" ctm> HII' I til; iniinieil lor i'\ iih'iu'o ei ideal Hie il inn el ll;l 111 I« I'i I i|ij{. 11l Ihe case of Mlil'lh.i Harlow v. ■lusepli Siimtueiw Itm'tow. ti deei. e nisi was gniuled, evidence having been :: M''| (ireviotMy, Mr, W. Nielsen tiypenvil (or (lie |>;'(itimu-i'.