SUPREME COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 24 March 1923, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS.

HAWERA APPEAL CASK

A case wliicii was expected to eteupv t,<o court tor the gieucer part of tne u^jf was called yesterday morning and aiter a preliminary ai.uoux>ceai a ,tl W made by counsel tor me -.ipp-jiaiic, the parties, acting uoon tiie acmee oi *us nonor coute.-i-6n over'"the matter and effected a cettlemeut u^Lhout t!e necessity of a trial. The case was an appeal from che decision or Mr Barton, »,*!., o f Kawora by James Baldwin (Mr F. C. Snratt) <n which Amy Baldwin (Mr i\ ODea) was respondent. In the lower court a separation had been sought by-the resoYuident upon the grounds ctf failure tv maintain, or intention/of failure to maintain; habitual drunkenness- ?nd persistent cruelty. The 'Magistrate, after hearing the case, made t-n rcder .on the last, ground alleged, fnd it was tor the purpose of removing tho stigma or persistent cruelty that the appeal w ras broughf. Mr Spraot said certain a"is winch had been alleged had o ean spread ever a perriod of some thr^e, -yeai-s, but it was submitted-that thej-e had been condonation.

ihe Judge suggested that as the parties were apparently getting on in life it would be a nity to accentuate any feeling there might be between them by having tins matter thrashed out a-sain in public, thereby destroying any chancy «1 future reconetliation, and he thought the husband might consent to a deed of separation and an order for mainteri?,fic e . Mr Spratt said that the appellant paid miantenance anct was nrcnared to pay maintenance without any order of the court. It was the grounds upon, which the order was made which he wished removed. It was questioned whether the cruelty complained of,, which consisted in a blow given in warding off an attack !>y the"wife, on the husband, could not be accounted cruelty. He also said that the evidence of the wife was supported by all the members of the family, most of whom were grown up, and that lie had only the husband <m his side. He. certainly thought thnt if a settlement cV>u!d be reached without the necesssity of a rehearing of the whole ease, it would be in the interests of all parties, and perhaps avoid destroying any lingering hope of the reconciliation ox the parties. . .

His Honor said the position v.-as O7ie ■which he thought might be net by an agreement, and he adjourned the court to allow counsel and their clients to confer on the matter. Upon, resuming, Mr Spratt announced that a settlement h?.d been arrived at on a basis of s*.-deed'of • separation, ■ the withdrawal of all the allegations against the husband, and the maintenance remaining the same^s " ■ffifcii-fi-r'&ii'-bv the Magistrate, bnt to be to revision or var'i+.'on by t^e solicitors for the parties. .The ouestion of costs w>s also-left for settlement by the solicitors. TWr O'T)ea con<vrred in this. The Jud.ie sr»id that he fho^Mi^e proper course hod been adopter!. He therefore adjourned the appeal pending the drawing up and execution of- the deed of separation. *md when this v"^s done the court could make an order vacating the Magistrate's order. — Herald.