SUPREME COURT.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 167, 29 June 1912, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

NAPIER. j FRIDAY. JUNE 28. ' (Before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout.) A WELL MERITED SENTENCE. Thomas Carroll, who was found guilty on Tuesday last of carnal knowledge with a child under five years of age, handed in a written statement.

Hij Honour, addressing prisoner, said: “You have been found guilty of a very grave offence and now say you had been drinking heavily' and had no recollection of what took place. I do not believe you. You have committed a ,very grave offence which happily in this colony is rare. I could sentence you to seven years and floggings. I do not intend you to be flogged, but you will be sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with hard labour. TWELVE MONTHS’ REFORMATORY TREATMENT. Ropiha, who was convicted of manslaughter in connection with the Waipawa motor car fatality, came up for sentence. Mr. Lusk spoke of accused's previous good character and stated that since Ropiha had come into money he had been drinking heavily. His Honoufc said he intended to deal as leniently as possible with accused. He would send him to a reformatory prison, where he hoped he would learn to mend his ways and give up drink altogether. Some drivers cf mpior cars were reckless, and it was necessary to protect the lives of people. Sentenced to 12 months’ reformatory treatment. ALLEGED SLANDER. B. E. Northe v. Peter Anderson, claim £5Ol for alleged slander. The defendant had since apologised, and plaintiff had accepted his apology and the case was struck out. 1 DIVORCE SESSIONS.

Decrees nisi, to be made absolute in three months, were granted in the following cases : —William J. Smale v. Ada Smale and A. Cummings (corespondent); James Jesperson v. Jessie Jesperson and John ’Weir (corespondent) ; Hilda Mclntosh v. Dugnld John Mclntosh, (desertion); Butt-more v. Buttimove (wife’s peti i «n cruelty and desertion); Lynch v. Lynch (wife’s petition c’uelty and desertion).

In the care Catherine Howard v. Gec'/gn H. Howa-d (bigunv) an adjournment of the hearing was applied" for and granted.

CIVIL CASES. The case of T. Waterworih v. A. G. Hughes, a claim for the taking of accounts and termination of part-n-rship and other relief, was -withdrawn, satisfactory arrangements for both pari’es bating been arrived nt.

A TEST CASE. Pata.-ga'a County Council v. Fanny White and another, claim £282 13/10 amount alleged to be due as rnt.E.

Mr. Murdoch Jor plaintiff and Mr, Wood for defendant. This was a case brought to obtain a ruling of the Court with regard to liability for rates. The property of the defendants had been acquired by the Grovcrnment, but they had not had their names removed from the rate book. Mr. Murdoch contend.d that as the names of the defendants were put rightly on the roll in the first place, they' were liable for payment cf rates so long as their names appeared cn such, roll, notwithstanding the fact that their occupancy of the land had ceased. He advanced argument and quoted cases in support of this contention. He further contended that there w’as no statutory authority directing he ValuerGeneral to remove names from the roll. It was for the ratepayer to rid himself of the liability.

His Honor asked if it was Mr. Murdoch’s contention that if a man gets on a roll he must remain there until he takes steps to get off, and so long as his name appeared on the roll he could be charged with rates to all eternity. * Mr. Murdoch: Yes; that is so, provided that he was in the first place rightly put on. Later His Honor suggested that Mr. Murdoch’s contention was that the roil was in existence by consent, and if he desired to get off it was his basiness.

Mr. Murdoch agreed that was so. Mr. Wood, in reply, said he relied entirely on the case of Spate. Mr. Murdoch had contended that they should have taken steps to get off the roll. They took the best step they could and got off the land. It had not been ’shown that there was any obligation to get oft the roll. His Honor suggested that Mr. Wood contended that if he was not brought under section 63 of the Rating Act there was no obligation to pay rates. Mr. Wood said that was so. It was a question, as His Honor said, as to whether the rate roll was conclusive and an estoppel. He quolxd cases to show that inaccuracies cn the roll were void. It was incumbent on the County to show they v. the occupiers.

Mr. Murdoch pointed out tr.at ic the case of Spate, the roll was madv up by the local authority’ after notice of assessment. The authority quoted was only applicable to the first putting on the roll cf an occupier. It was not a case of the Valuer-General doing something wrong, but wher. he had no authority to take action. It was the omission to give no ice which made continuous liability. His Honor decided to reserve hi. decision.

SATURDAY. JUNE 29. DISCHARGE IN BANKRUPTCY. Robert Heffci d was granted a di ■>- charge. ORIGINATING SUMMONS. The case set down for hearing this morning was that of O’Brien and others v. Hunt in which a declaratory judgment was sought with re'ercnce to the interpretation of a will. Mr. Gleesen appeared for plainriffs and Mr. Dclan fee the defendant.

In opening the case for the plaintiffs, Mr. Gleeson said the facts were that in 1898 one Daniel Hunt, of Port Ahuriii, owned a small section of land on which were tw o cottages. He died leaving what from the affidavit put in that morning could be proved to be a valid will. This man, on his death, left' a widow', three daughters and tw'o sons, one of the daughters having since died. The will had apparently been left in the possession,-©! Margaret Hunt, but nothing had been i done in the matter until last year I when steps w’ere taken* on behalf ol Margaret O’Brien, her sister and two brothers. The matter to be determined w r as whether Margaret Hunt took the properly absolutely cr whether she took it in common with her two brothers.

Mr. Dolan, for the defendants, thereupon submitted lh.tr the intention. of the testator was that the wife should take the estate for her life and that the daughter should take the remainder.

His Honour reserved judgment until Monday. The Court w’as afterw'ards adjourned until 10.30 a.m. on Monday.