DR. FEATHERSTON'S MISSION TO ENGLAND.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVI, Issue 3886, 4 February 1870, Page 5

DR. FEATHERSTON'S MISSION TO ENGLAND.

A CORRESPONDENT, writing to the Daily iV«<?9 on this subject, says : — "I ain glad to see tliat Dr. Featnwston i3 on his way to England to plead the cause of the colony in person. If any one man knows more about the necessities and the resources of New Zealand than another, it is he. I am not sanguine enough to hope that hia mission will produce any effect, but the fact of its failure will leave the Colonial Office and its self-satisfied supporters without excuse, and will remove all blame in the eyes of thinking men from the colonists if they should transfer their allegianee from a mother, who will do nothing for them, to a cousin, who will do all. Bitterly grieved as I should be at such an end of New Zealand as a British colony, I should not be surprised to see it, and I for one should consider the Colonial Government fully justified in taking steps to bring about this result."

Parkinson v. Parkinson. — This case came on for hearing in the Divorce Court on November 17, before the Judge Ordinary. The respondent wad formerly an officer in the army, and he married the petitioner in New Zealand in 1861. In 1864 he sold out, and they came to England, and she now charged him with having deserted her. It appeared that in April, 1866, they had executed a, deed of separation, by which he agreed to allow her £150 a year. He had, however, been unable to pay the allowance. Since the separation he had been guilty of adultery. His Lordship held that by executing the deed the petitioner had bargained away her rights, and that the charge of desertion could not be supported. She was entitled to a judicial separation on the ground of adultery if she wished it. Ex par te Hankey . — TheNew ZealandBanking Company. — This was an application to the Master of the Rolls, on November 11, on behalf of Mr. Henry Alers Hankey, that an inquiry might be directed in order to "ascertain whether the directors of the above con\pany or any of them had misapplied any moneys of the concern, or made false reports, or were guilty-of any other misfeasance, or of any breach of trust in relation to the concern, and that in such inquiry regard might be had to the benefits accrued to the contributories by virtue of an agreement between Mr. Hankey and the official liquidator, dated in June, 1868, and sanctioned by the Court, and also of the benefits derived to them from an order of July 30 last. Meantime it was sought to restrain the action at law which had , been commenced against the late directors of i the company. His Lordship waa of opinion that he had no jurisdiction to order the inquiry, but, as the motion had been made with his sanction, it would be refused without costs, j Those of the official liquidatdr must be allowed put of the'eatate.