THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 7651, 29 June 1888, Page 3

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

SUPREME -COURT.—DIV.ORCK AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Williams),

Harris v. Harris.—Petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. Mr E. Cook, instructed by Mr F. W. R. Anderson, appeared for the petitioner, William Cargill Harris; there was no appearance for the respondent, Mary Harris. Mr Cook said that an order had been made dispersing with a co-respondent in the suit.

His Honor said that a question of jurisdiction arose, as the petitioner was at present domiciled in New South Wales. Mr Cook submitted that that was met by the latter part of tho petitioner's evidence, taken on commission, that he had no intention of staying there, and that he was born at Dunedin. Counsel proceeded to read the Eetitioner's evidence, which set forth that e was born at Dunedin, and that in October, 18S1, he was married to the respondent. They lived together fo: about eight months, when one day she went away from home and returned in a state of intoxication. He remonstrated with her, on which she abused him and left the house again. After some days she returned, and witness overlooked her conduct, but she continued to get drunk frequently and to absent herself from home, while she absolutely refused to give any acoount of her actions. She also often assaulted witness, sometimes with a poker, and at other times throwing glasses, boxes, nd even a kettle of hot water at him. In June, 1882, witness left Graham street, where he had been residing, and went to Melbourne, and thence to Orange, where he now lived. He did this with a view of sending for his wife, as he thought that ehange of scene might reform her. Since he had lived in New South Wales he had sent her sufficient money regularly to keep her respectably, but of late he discovered that she was living in a state of prostitution, had been convicted of drnnkenness, vagrancy, and disorderly conduct, and had been living in a state of adultery with Chinamen, to whom she had had some half-caste children.

Margaret Foote stated that in ISS2 the petitioner waß married to the respondent, then Mary M 'Carthy. Petitioner was a son of the late John Hyde Harris. Respondent, about eleven months ago, placed a two months' old child in witness's care. The father of the child was a Chinaman. Respondent was then living with a Chinaman in a house near witness's, and she afterwards went to Lawrence. The child died on March 6 last. Respondent had previously had a ohild by a European father, and it died about two years ago. She had now a third child at Lawrence. David Ronaldson Eunson stated that he and the petitioner were in 1882 employed in the same establishment, that of Messrs Cutten and Co. One day the respondent called at the office to see her husband. She was intoxicated, and she nearly killed her husband by taking up a file and driving it at his head. It knocked his hat off. Witness went for a policeman, and she was removed. She frequently called at the place when intoxicated. Petitioner at last had to leave the place, and some arrears of salary due to him he instructed witness to hand over to respondent. Petitioner used also to send over post office orders to witness, which were handed to respondent. For three months they averaged LI per week, and afterwards 15s per week. After about eight months petitioner wrote saying that he had heard that his wife was leading a life of prostitution, and that he would send her no more money. Sergeant-major Bevin stated that the respondent had been frequently before the Police Court and convicted of vagrancy, using obscene language, and drunkenn«3S. JShe was a very bad character, and was very violent in her conduct. She had children to various men after her marriage. Before her marriage she was a domestic servant, and had an illegitimate child to one Norman, who was employed in the Railway Department. Witness had known the petitioner here since he was a little boy. William Edward Shury, bailiff to the Resident Magistrate's Court at Lawrence, stated that about twelvo years ago he resided in Dunedin. He knew the petitioner at that time, and knew the respondent now. The latter was at presentat Lawrence, and witness served the citation in this case on her. She admitted that she was petitioner's wife, and that she was then living with a Chinaman named Ah Shin, to whom she had a child. She had been before the Lawrence Court for drunkenness and using obscene language. His Honor said that for all practical purposes New Zealand was the domicile of origin of the petitioner, as if not born here he must have arrived here with his parents when very young. Taking that into consideration, and also that this is the loem contractus and also the locus delicti, he thought that there was sufficient to found jurisdiction on. It was unfortunate that the petitioner was not present, but his absence seemed to be satisfactorily accounted for. That the conduct of the respondent had been gross and glaring there was no question. Decree nw granted, to be made absolute in three months. IN CHAMBERS. M'Queen and M'Qoekn v. Mair, under Divorce Act.—Motion to fix time and mode of trial. Mr Solomon appeared to move.— Fixed for next sittings, with a common jury. The Colonial Investment Company v. Askew.—Motion for leave to defend action, and that ten days bo allowed to file statement of defence (Mr Sinclair), Order accordingly. Farnie v. Caller and others.—Summons to plaintiff for examination of Montagu Pyni as witness for defendants before the Registrar (Mr (1. Cook).—Order accordingly. Re Walpmann's Infants.—Summons for appointment of guardian, etc. (Mr Meatyard).—Registrar to inquire and report. M'KINNON AND ANOTHER V. THE OTAfiO Dock Trust.—Application for costs on discontinuance of action (Mr Fraser).—Order for costs as on a judgment for defendants. Re Elizabeth: Wilson, deceased.— Motion for probate (Mr Fraser).—Order accordingly. . Re Angus Wiuon, deceased. —Motion for probate (Mr Hosking).—Order inglyRe Charles Matthews, deceased. Motion for probate (Mr Fraser).—Order accordingly. Re William Lindsay, deceased.—Motion for approval of Registrar's report (Mr Denniston).—Order as per Registrar's report. CITY POLICE COURT. (Before Messrs K. Ramsay, A. Rennie, and J. P. Jones, J.P.s.) Drunkenness. —George White and %, liyme were each fined 5s and costs, with the usual alternative. Peter Ramsay (a first offender) was discharged. Breach of the Peace.— Leslie Graham pleaded guilty to a charge of creating a breach of the peace in George street on the 27th, and was fined 5s or twenty-four hours' imprisonment. To a further charge of assaulting Constable Ruttledge t ccused also pleaded guilty, and he was fined 40s or one month. Insufficient Means of Support.— Robert JToivie waß charged with having insufficient means of support. Mr Stuart appeared for the ascused. Evidence ■ was given by Sergeant Gearin, Constables Green and Jiuttladge, and Detective Henderson as to thehabita of accused.—For the defence 'a witneso named' Lawrence stated that accused Mad worked with him in several parts of the oountry.—The Bench decided that in the face of this evidence they could not do otherwise than dismiss the case. False Pretences. Alfred Kerr was charged with obtaining by means of falsa pretences from William M'Beath, on the 23rd May last, one overooat, two shirts, two pair of sooks, one pair of gloves, and a suit of clothes, valued at L 3 16s 7d.—Accused pleaded guilty.— Detective Henderson said the facts of the case were that the accused, who was a jockey, came to Dunedin to attend the race meeting on the 24th May last, and obtained the goods mentioned, representing that he waß sent by a Mr Holmes to obtain them. The complainant sent the bill to Mr Holmes, who eaid he knew nothing of it. The com-

plainant did not wish to press the charge, as accused was respectably connected. —The Probation Officer asked that the ease bo remanded to give him an opportunity of making the necessary inquiries into the accused's antecedents.—The case was remanded for a week to allow the Probation Officer to act; accused in the meantime to be discharged from custody. Obscenk Language. Margaret Smith pleaded not guilty to a charge of using obscene language. —Mr Stuart, for the accused, asked for an adjournment to allow him to produce a witness.—lnspector Weldon said that the case had already been adjourned from the 27th ; but he did not wish to stand in the way of the production of a witness, since one was forthcoming.— The case was adjourned until Monday. Damaging Property. Arthur Beevex (18) and Edward Edmunds (13) were charged with having on the 18th inst. damaged a door, the property of John Sidey, at Caversham, to the extent of Ll.—James Phemister stated that he saw Reeves, Edmunds, and another boy named Dawson at Sidey's house on the day mentioned. He heard firing inside, and one of the shots went past him as he went towards the houre. The accused youths asked witness to " have a shot," but he refused. They were firing with a dinglebarrelled gun. There was a hole in the door.—Thomas Dawson stated that three shots were fired by the two accused and himself inside the house. Edmunds and the witness had smashed the door with bricks. The door was broken long before witness saw the house.— Constable Parker deposed that the door had the appearance of having been smashed by bricks, but there were holes "blown right through " the weatherboards of the house. Reeves had admitted having a gun.—Evidence was also given by Sergeant Macdonnell.—The Bench said they did not want to send the boys to prison, but someone must suffer, and Mr Sidey had no right to be the sufferer. The boys would be. ordered to pay within a month lialf the damage, and also the costs of the present proceedings. By-law Oases.—For allowing a chimney to take fire Joseph Toomey was fined 2s 6d and costs. For keeping unregistered dogs, ,/. 7). Union and Erned (two charges) were each fined 2s 6d without costs, and Lyndon Ruttledge (two charges) Is without costs on each charge. Charges against John Spence and B. B. Williams were adjourned for a week, whilst an information against Charles Dunbar was withdrawn.

Adjourned Case.—A charge of using provoking language, preferred by Matilda Robinson against Jane Jack, Jwas, on the application of Mr Stuart, who appeared for the defendant, adjourned until Monday next.

(Before Messrs W. Hutchison and R, Chisholm, J.P.s.)

Dornwell v. Strachan.—ln this previouslyheard libel case the Justices could not agree, and the case was adjourned for a second time until to-day. Mr Hutchison now said that the Justices still could not agree, and that as far as they were concerned at the present moment the case came to an end. They were there to do everything that might be thought necessary on their part, and had no desire to shirk their duty. —Mr Sim asked that the case be adjourned until next week.—Mr Denniston submitted that since the two Justices could not agree the case must be dismissed. A dismissal would not be a bar to further action being taken. His learned friend could lay an information to-morrow. —Mr Sim preferred an adjournment to get the opinion of a third Justice.— Mr Hutchison said that the Justices had endeavored to think it out, but it was impossible for them to agree. If it would save expense, they would take the course suggested by the late Mr Justice Johnston ; but it would suit them personally, without prejudice, to dismiss the case. The case would be dismissed accordingly, without prejudice to another information being laid.