SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXXI, Issue 10275, 17 February 1894, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. Friday, Fbb. 16. (Stefcre his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) VICKERY V. VICKERY. Mr Stringer applied, in the matter of Vickery v. Vickery, for a motion returning to summons of Sept. 14, Mr Beswick, on the other side, did not oppose the order. His Honor allowed the matter to stand over without making an order after hearing the application. LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION. Mr Stringer applied for letters of admin- , istration to be granted to the widow of John Vickery, deceased. His Honor made the order, fixing the •surety of administration at 36500. Hia Honor granted letters of administration of the estate of Patrick Perrens, fixing the surety at £75. ■ ■ ■• ■ On the motion of Mr Kippenberger, his Honor granted letters of administration in the estate of William M’Shane, fixing two sureties of £2500 each. PROBATE. His Honor granted probate in the estates of Arthur Kerrison Jarvis (Mr Thomas), Donald M’Millan (Mr Harris), Frederick George Thomas (Mr Slater), and William David M’Haffie (Mr Widdowson).; : WELSH V. WILLIAMS AND OTHERS. Mr Donnelly applied for directions in the matter 'of Welsh' v. 'Williams and others, which was a case _ involving an estate of £SOO, Directions were required as to the service of one of the parties-who was not to be found. . His Honor said that the plaintiff could proceed with the case without service at his own risk. Substituted service was not asked to be allowed by the court. There was no great difficulty, and the matter could stand over until full information was available. BE THE WAIMBA CREEK GOLD DREDGING COMPANY. On the motion of Mr Stringer, in re the Waimda Creek Gold Dredging Company, Limited, and re the Companies Act, his Honor fixed a date for the hearing of the matter. RE GEORGE HARPER. Mr Fisher applied, on behalf of the Law Society, to have the rule nisi made, absolute in the matter of George Harper, in re the Law Practitioners Act. His Honor said he had no power to make the rule absolute. Mr Fisher said the matter would be moved into the Court of Appeal, His Honor said he was really asked to reserve the case for the Court of Appeal. He would like to hear counsel for G. Harper. Mr Wilding was sent for, and said that he concurred in the propriety of sending the matter to the Court of Appeal. His Honor therefore made the necessary order without remark. Mr Fisher asked if his Honor would make any order re the suspension of G. Harper. Mr Wilding said that his client had himself refrained from practising; but he (Mr Wilding) was not prepared to discuss the matter, as he had not been aware that the Court would be asked to make such an order. He had received no notice of any such intention; His Honor said that, while having authority, for making the order, he would hold it over for a week, on account of what Mr Wilding had said. Mr Fisher mentioned the matter of costs, asking his Honor if the Law Society would have to bear the costs of the proceedings in the Appeal Court. Copies of the case had to be made for each of the judges of the Appeal Court, and, as it was voluminous, the expense would be very great. Could His Honor make any suggestion P His Honor said that in Hew Zealand, where the Law Societies were not incorporated, and were much impoverished, it was a most unreasonable and unfair thing that the coats should be thrown upon them of proceedings such as the present. The expenses prevented many societies fiom moving where they ought to move. They should direct their attention to getting some legislation passed making it possible in proper cases for the Crown to take up the burden of proceedings of the present character, which were good illustrations of the hardships incurred by the Law Societies. However, as things were at present, the costs would have to be borne by the society. He could make no order.

Mr Joynt, who appeared for T. W, Maude, said that it seemed to him that it was the clients on whose behalf the proceedings were instituted, and not by the insolvents. The parties interested in the proceedings should guarantee the costs. His Honor said the Law Society undertook the proceedings on its own motion, in the interests of the legal profession generally. There were no clients to- be interested at all., The .Law. Society represented the entire legal fraternity, and it was in their interest only that the present proceedings were taken. EE T. W. MAUDE. His Honor made an - order in re T, W. Maude similar to that made in George Harper’s case, and 'allowed the question of suspension to stand over for .Mr .Joynt’s consideration.' '' , ' , , ‘ : KENNEDY V. KENNEDY. In this divorce - matter of Kennedy . v. Kennedy, Mr Joynt, for the wife, moved for permanent alimony, and the custody of the children. Mr Stringer appeared for the husband. The argument with reference to the income upon which alimony was to be calculated was whether it was to be considered as always the same as that made during the last three years from the farm, or the interest capable of being earned by its capital value.' Mr Joynt asked £6O a year permanent alimony for the wife, she to have the custody of two children (a girl of eleven and a boy of thirteen), and receive £2O per year each for their maintenance. Mr Stringer contended that the annual income of the husband would not amount to the sum ’estimated by the witnesses for th© wife, and that alimony' should not be calculated upon the basis suggested. It should be calculated .as so much per cent upon the capital invested in the farm. One hundred and fifty pounds per year would be the highest estimate of the income of the husband. He contended that Mr Joynt had made out no ease for the custody of the children. His Honor said that the parties had been judicially separated by the Court by consent, owing to the impossibility of their living together, on account c£ continual disagreements. They hfid been, married for'over thirty-two years, and had.lived together all that time.- The , husband, assisted by his wife and family, had acquired an excellent small farm, and its mortgage was now to, a great extent paid off. During the last four year's the farm had begun to show a good profit, and it was only during that time that disagreementa between the husband and wife had taken place. From the evidence it seemed that money matters had caused these quarrels. Great provocation had been sworn to on the part of the wife, and cruel treatment by the husband. She bad wanted to build a new house, and the husband had insisted upon paying off the mortgage, and hence the continuous disagreements. The amount of alimony to be paid had to be based upon the resources of the Husband, as his conduct had 1 not been such as to warrant the Court calculating the amount upon bad conduct. The evidence concerning the income derivable from the farmhad been more or leas only ! conjecture, and his Honor did not agree with the form of calculations proposed by the wife. The contingencies of season and many others had to be taken • into account. One very reasonable means of ascertaining the amount of alimony was

by looking at the income as being the amount obtainable from the sale or lease of the farm. A comparatively small income would thereby be found-something near £IOO a year. 1 Very full value would be given if the Court estimated the income at £l5O per year and baaed alimony thereon. He thought that the regular rule of allowing the wife a third of this income would be fair; and, under the circumstances of the ease,, he would allow the wife £SO a year. Then there was the question of the custody of the two children under fourteen. The boy was practically fourteen years old. It would nave been better had some agreement been come to about these children, but as such had not occurred, he would pronounce upon the legal aspect of the case. The father had not been shown to have been guilty of such misconduct as should take away from him his legal rights as the custodian of the children, and therefore his Honor would not interfere with those rights, but allow the father to have the custody of both children. It would be unreasonable to take them away and make the father pay for their maintenance while he was willing to give them a home on hia farm. His Honor allowed £35 counsel’s fee for the application for separation, and £7 7s costs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V, HEATHCOTE HOAD BOARD. There was no appearance of counsel in this case, which had been set down .for , hearing after Chamber business, and hia -Honor directed that it should be struck put.