APPEAL DISMISSED

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 199, 20 May 1936, Page 6

APPEAL DISMISSED

Parties in Action Fail to Appear Dominion Special Service. ralmerston North, May 19. An appeal from a judgment of Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., proceedings in regard to which have been before various courts on four occasions, was set down for hearing by the Supremo Court at Palmerston North to-day. The original case was one in which Helen Kuiti, of Ohau, proceeded against William Winiata, of Hokio alleging him to be the father of her chiM. At the first hearing in the Magistrate’s Court complainant succeeded in the action, but that decision was subsequently reversed on an appeal to the Supreme Court. Later complainant filed fresh proceedings, and.in his reserved judgmeftt of the hearing which came on then, Mr. Salmon stated that he was governed by findings of the higher court, and additional evidence brought at the hearing had not affected those findings. For these reasons he dismissed the complaint. The case for to-day was a general appeal from that judgment, involving a rehearing. Mr. J. 11. Cooper appeared for complainant and Mr. E. D. Blundell (Wellington) for defendant. When the case was called, counsel for complainant said that some of his important witnesses had not arrived from Levin, and accordingly asked for an adjournment for half an hour. When the court resumed Mr. Cooper said two witnesses were still not present, although he was satisfied that they had been properly subpoenaed. He failed to understand why they were not in attendance, and asked that the case be adjourned until the next sitting of the court. Counsel for defendant strongly objected to such an adjournment, saying that had the hearing proceeded it would have been the fourth time on which the case had been beard in either the Magistrate’s or the Supreme Court. Further, the two witnesses who had failed to appear were two against whom certain allegations had been made. Mr. Blundell asked his Honour to give a direction that any further information in connection with the appeal which the opposite party might make under a certain section of tie justices of the Peace Act should be refused by the justices. His Honour said he would not adjourn the case further, as the parties had had ample opportunity of appearing before the court. He allowed minimum costs in dismissing the appeal. He did not see that he could give such a direction as Mr. Blundell had requested, as justices were statutory officers dealing with matters as they came before them. But either party had the usual recourse of making an appeal open to them. i DECREE ABSOLUTE GIVEN Palmerston North, May 19. The sitting of the Supreme Court at Palmertson North was continued to-day, Mr. Justice Ostler presiding. A decree absolute was granted Mrs. Helga Theresia Morris, of Palmerston North, in the divorce action she brought against Edward Charles Morris. Counsel for petitioner, Mr. S. T. Tinney (Pahiatua) said that in February last a decree nisi had been granted and petitioner was given the interim custody of the one child of the marriage. The grounds for the action had been desertion, and respondent was now of parts unknown. Counsel asked for a decree absolute and permanent custody of the child, which was granted.