THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 12964, 8 November 1906, Page 4

THE COURTS—TO-DAY.

SUPREME COURT.—IN DIVORCE. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice and a jury of twelve.) MfIJIHEAD V. MUIKHEAD ASX) OAW. Tliis was a petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. Mr Irwin appeared for the petitioner; and Mr Hanlon for the 1 co-respondent. ] At the conclusion of the evidence yestor--1 day afternoon, the jury paid a visit to the Pe'lichet Bay railway station, where the misconduct was alleged to have taken place. I Learned counsel addressed the jury this morning. Mr Hanlon asked the jury if they believed that the letter from the respondent addressed to the co-respondent and intercepted by the petitioner was written by the woman herself without assistance or dictation. If they considered what became of the letter, then be put it that it was written at the instigation of her husband. Why was Mr Muirhead at nine o’clock at night walking up and down in front of the postal box? There were one or two peculiarities about the case. There was the other man who was on the railway station on the Saturday afternoon in question, and who was not called as a witness. The next th.ug was that the petitioner was not wrath about his wife’s alleged misconduct at the time. The next was that ha went to his wife’s iiouse and played cards with her, and that he was about the place from time to time after the Saturday. What were the circumstances concerning the petitioner's marriage ? He said lie had known the respondent six or eight months, that he did not know how long they were engaged. Ho prevaricated under cross-examination about money matters—Liu- money that was subscribed when the woman lost her previous husband. After he was married the petitioner found that the money which he thought was hers belonged to the children. There was nothing against the co-respondent except the ev.deucc of the petitioner, who allowed his wife to go away after the alleged misconduct and catch her train, and that was all about it. He (Mr Hanlon) was fully convinced that the jury would not credit that any offence had been committed. Mr Irwin said that there was no foundation for the suggestion that the letter was written by the respondent at her husband’s dictation." Learned counsel asked the jury to bear in mind that Mr Muirhead did not , ask for damages. Ho wanted no damages from Mi- Gaw, or lie would have claimed them. 'AU he wanted was what lie was justly entitled to. The petitioner’s explanation for being at his wife’s home after the Saturday was it perfectly reasonable one. His mother-in-law wanted to see him, and lie went there to make a full explanation of tiro position to her. It was unreasonable to .suppose that a woman would be invited into a station-master's office even on a cold, stormy day. Ills Honor, in addressing the jury, said that there were two issues to be put before them. The first was: Did the respondent misconduct herself with tlic co-respon-dent? And the second was: Did the corespondent misconduct himself with" the respondent? There was no doubt about the first issue ; there was the admission of the respondent, and no denial; but that did not prove that there was evidence (o compel the jury to find against the curesixindent- on the second issue. In this ease there was no evidence that there bad been any disagreement between the man and his wife, it was open to the petitioner to Slave claimed damages, but ho fisked for none. Ho thought that showed that the man did not come to the Court for the purpose of making money. There was no evidence that belore the petitioner’s marriage it was held out to him that the respondent had any money. Further, there was no evidence to show collusion between the petitioner and the co-respondent. Up to the last letter there could bo no suggestion that the woman was in collusion with her husband. The letter was not evidence against the co-respondent. The jury retired at noon, and returned at 3.30 pin., wiicn The Foreman said that they had liven unable to come to it unanimous decision. On the iiist issue: “ Wits the respondent guilty of misconduct witli tlie co-respon-dent'.'" nine jurymen said "No,” and three "Yes." On the second count: “Was tire co-respondent guilty of misconduct with the respondent?” one sard “ Yes,” :ind eleven “No.” Mr Hanlon then moved that the petition bo dismissed. His Horror: You are entitled to that. It is an. extraordinary verdict so far ae the first issue is concerned. Tito petition is dismissed unless there is a motion for a new trial. Mr Irwin : A motion will l>e made. Mr Hanlon : I ask for costs. His Honor : Tlio petition is dismissed with year costs. i.’NiiKt’KN'pnn pivouct:. (Before His HonorUho Chief Justice.) Margaret Crook v. Samuel Thomas Crook. —Tins was a petition for a dissolution of marriage on tiro ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent. Mr Hanlon raid that the parties were married at Gamaru on the 26th of January, 1882, and there were several children of the marriage. In November, 1898, the respondent loft his wife, and remained away for about a year. Ho went away again, although his wife begged him to stay. In 1900 he returned again, but after stopping one or two nights lie cleared away to Christchurch, and had not since returned. Money was sent to the wife from rime to time in an envelope, but there was no note or anything to show from whom it came. She had kept a boarding-house and laundry, and maintained the children during the last six years. . . Evidence was given by the petitioner and John Davidson Cooper (general dealer at Gamaru). His Honor granted decree nisi, with caste on the lowest scale. Mary Elizabeth T. Grey v. William Herbert Grey, formerly dredgemaster, of Dunedin. This was a petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. Mr W. Downie Stewart appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent. Mr Stewart explained that the parties were married in Dunedin on the 24th of April, 1893, and resided at Port Molyneux, New South Wales, and then came back to Dunedin in 1903. There were two children of the marriage. In the month of June, 1905, the respondent went on a shooting excursion to Manapouri, and while there misconducted himself. On being taxed with this by his wife he admitted it, and shortly afterwards left for Victoria. He had not been heard of since. Evidence was given by the petitioner and James Scobie. ■ His Honor granted decree nisi, with costs on the lowest scale. a civil ACnoK. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) Robert Mori and Alexander Dawes v. the Norwich Union Fire Assurance Company. This was a claim for £2OO on a tire insurance policy. Mr Solomon and Mr Woodhon.se appwired for the plaintiffs, and Mr Adams and Mr Hanlon for the defendants. Mr Woodhouso said that the defences that had been put in had been fairly numerous. The defendants denied the ownerslup of the plaintiff Mori, and that Dawes was tlie mortgagee. The chief defences so! up were allegations of practically fraud ugdinst Mr Mori. The facts were that Mr Mori was a tinsmith carrying on business in King street Some time lie fore June, 1906, there had been a big fire at the premises of the New Zealand Hardware Company, and Mr Mori became aware that amongst the salvage stock there were about 600 cases of what was known as tin plates. He agreed with the company to purchase the 600 cases, more or less, at 6s 3d per case. : The company wished a guarantee, and Mr Mori arranged with Hr Dawes to join in the venture. It was material which Mr Mori considered ha could make as good as new. A deposit of £25 was paid by Mr Dawes. A tally of the stuff was made* and it came to 514 cases, for which £l6O was paid, but Mr Mori reckoned ho got about 625 to 530 cases in all. Xbo whale lot of the stuff ultimately went

to Mr Dawes's place. A /fresh arrange- I ment was then ocano to between Mr Dawes I and Mr Mori, and that was that the for- j mer, instead of being a party in the | corner, became the mortgagee. It was i estimated that about £l4O or £l5O would be required to renovate the plates. After the renovation was complete tie plates were removed to Mr Mori’s place. An insurance was then effected with the Norwich Union Company for £2OO. On tho 7th of August Mr Mori’s place was burned down, and Die company refused to pay the insurance. An inquiry was held into the fire. The ease was proceeding when wo went to press.