SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 227, 19 June 1920, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

A CLAIM THAT FAILED

SEQUEL TO A JUDGMENT FOR V : .£SOO DAMAGES

Tho. Chief Justice (Sir Bobert Stout) yea.tbrday heard argument on a matter that came before him upon a sheriffs interplcoder summons. ' The DroccediiiKs took their rise from a case heard in February laßt, in, which Angelina Bernard, of Lyall Bay. not inaument against William Browning, engineer, for £500 for fraudulent misrepresentation in the salo of shares in a West Coast cnld-mininc claim ("Basley's .Reward ). After the inclement a writ of sale was issued acainst certain chattels (a Blioov iiiß nailery, etc.) owned by defendant ana situated at Trontham Military Camp. ln« chattels were duly seized by the sfterin and advertised for sale. Defendants mother subsimiently Jodced a claim, ailogins that bv an instrument dated Mn.v 20 last, she had become the purchaser ol the Roods in consideration of her discnarKins defendant from certain liabilities. I lie instrument; wnich consisted of mutual acknowledcments aiened by defendant ana his mother, was not registered. Yesterday. Mr. M. P. Luckie (counsel for Mrs. Bernard) contended that tno transaction between Browninc and Mil mother was fraudulent, and was intent--cd solely to defeat the execution creditor. Ho further submitted that non-red straiten rendered the instrument void as against the oxecution creditor, since no nossMsion had been taken of the chattels in question. Ou behalf of the claimant (Mrs. Browning) Mr. D. I!, Richmond contended that a transfer of tho chattels was executed and that although no nhysioal[possession was taken, richts of ownership were exercised by the claimant. The Court ruled that aB the claimant did not take possession of the (roods the "absolute bill of sale" or assignment given her by the judgment debtor was no answer to tho writ of tho sheritl. inc sheriff mteht therefore sell the property, but he would be directed to hold the proceeds of the salo for ten days so as to allow the claimant to anneal, if she desired, acnlnst the Courts decision, in the event of there being no appeal, the money would, of course, go to the .ludEment creditor. IN DIVORCE. His Honour hoard two undefended, divorce cases. „ _ Anne Jlaria Luscombe (Mr. H. f. O'lieary) sought a dissolution of her marriage with limestone Bond Luscombe. on the ground of adultery, petitioner -stated that she married respondent on August 5. 1913, in Devon, England. She/came to New Zealand with the respondent in 1914. There were two children of the marriage, one born in England and the other In New Zealand. Respondent went away with the Forces on November 30. 1915. Mrly in 191 V he wro'-c petitioner letters containing admissions of adultery. In January. 1920. he returned to New Zealand, but did not speak to petitioner when ho flaw her in the street. Petitioner was at present supporting herself and her children. Another witness testified that the letters produced by petitioner as cvidcnco of misconduct were in respondents handwriting. His Honour granted a decree nisi, with costs on tho lowest scale, and the custody of the children .to the petitioner. Maria Brown (Mr. H. F. OXeary) otiarged Herbert Brown with having desorted her. She stated that she was married to respondent in 1903 at Waipnkurau. She last resided with him in September, 1909, at Whangampiuona. 3teßPondent never made a home for her. He told her, when she complained, that slip would have to work for herself. She replied that her health would not allow her to work, and she went to her relatives' place lor a time. Thon she returned to respondent, but after a brief stay she went away again and obtained einnloyment. She had not seen'-respondent for the past nino years, Evidence that the parties had not lived together during the last nine years was eiven by another witness. A decreo nisi was granted, with" costs on the lowest Boalo. Petitioner .was given an interim order for the custody of the two children of the marriage.