SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CV, Issue 12429, 19 February 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Monday, Fed. 18. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Dennistou.) Coates v. Vincent.—This was a claim for £665 12s, for. use of land. Mr Harper appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Stringer for defendant. Mr Harper asked that the ease should be allowed to stand over, as there was a possibility of its being settled out of Court. His Honor adjourned the case sine die. Copland v. Blmslie. —This was an action in which plaintiff seeks to recover £554 13s 6d and interest on alleged breach of agreement. Mr Harman appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Harper for defendant. On tlio application. of Mr Harper this, case was also adjourned sine die. Kelly v. Joyce. —This was a claim for £3lO 6s, on money advanced. Mr Bruges appeared for the plaintiff, and asked for an adjournment for a fortnight. His Honor granted the adjournment. Mr Johnston appeared for the defendant, Canterbury Jockey Club v. Patterson, — In this action the plaintiff company sought to recover £IOO damages for alleged trespass. Mr Fisher appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr Harper for the defendant. His Honor fixed' Monday, Feb. 25, at, 10.30 a.ra., as the time of hearing. Carroll v. "Whittle.—ln this case plaintiff claimed for specific performances,-in-quiries, etc., or £SOO damages. Mr Stringer appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr Byrne {for Mr Kippenberger) for the defendant. On the application: of Mr Stringer, his Honor fixed Thursday, Feb. 21, at 10.30 a.m., for the time of hearing. Clayton v. Grantham.—This was a claim for specific performances, or £IOO damages and return of, deposit. Mr Izard appeared for the plaintiff -and. Mr Hc-oan for the defendant. ■ Mr Hoban applied for «a adjournment, which his Honor granted until Wednesday, Feb. 20. IN DIVORCE. ■ Brown v. Brown.—This was a wife’s petition for divorce on the grounds of continual desertion, and Mr, Stringer, who appeared for-the petitioner, applied for an adjournment. His Honor fixed the hearing for Wednesday, Feb. 20, at 10 -a.m. Adams v. Adams. —This was also a petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion. Mr Fisher appeared for the petitioner, and stated that there was a commission to take evidence in Dunedin, which was not returnable until Monday next. Mr Stringer appeared for the respondent, and stated that it was possible be would require to ask for commission to take evidence in Perth, Western Australia. His Honor fixed the hearing for Tuesday, Feb. 26, to come on provided the case Canterbury Jockey Club v. Pattereon was finished. LAW NOTICES. Tuesday, Feu. 19. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Denniston.) IN CHAMBERS, 10.30 a.m. Re Mary Jane Smith, deceased.—Motion for letters of administration. Mr Maude. ' Trustee Act and Amendment Act, 1899, and re J. H. Brett.—Motion for discharge from trusteeship, also for consideration of Registrar’s report. Mr Badger. Curtis v. Green.—Motion for consideration of ■Registrar’s report. Mr Francis. Re Thomas Peroival Wooding, deceased. —Motion for appointment of trustees, also for sanction of lease. Mr Raymond. Thomson v. Hume and others (Westland). —Summons for change of venue. Mr Beare. ■ IN 'DIVORCE. Smith v. Smith.—Motion to dispense with personal service-. Mr M’Connel. Hooper v. Hooper.—Summons for attachment, etc., Mr Bates. IN BANKRUPTCY. Re Jane Maria Richards. —A debtor’s summons for adjudication. Mr Johnston. Re ;William Bnurdot, bankrupt.—Motion to fix hearing of application for discharge. [Per Press Association.;) WELLINGTON, Feb. 18. In the Supreme Court Lionel Ferdinand Tegn-ev was charged that he did, on Oct. 31, at Hunterville, steal £lOl 6s sd, the property of her late Majesty the Queen. The accused' was a clerk in the employ of the Public Works Department, and acted as accountant under Mr G. L. Cook, the engineer, who ha d a'large body of co-opera-tive workers under his control. Evidence was given by P. P. Webb, an officer of the Audit Department, that an examination 0 f the accused’s accounts showed a deficiency to the amount named: in the indictment. Mr Wilford, Counsel for the defence, did not call evidence, but in his address to the jury he submitted that while there was a deficiency in the account. - ! there was no evidence of criminal intent on the part of the accused, and that the shortage had occurred tlirough a muddle, partly clue to the enormous amount of- work which the accused had to perform. Mr Justice Edwards said there had been a lax system of paying the workers, but there was nothing in the acts of the accused to show that he was a guiltv man. After a. retirement of twenty minutes the jury brought in a verdict of not guilty. DUNEDIN, Feb. ,18. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court will open next week. The calendar consists of charges against twelve prisoners, including one of man slaughter, at Cromwell, against the dredge-master of the Central Electric dredge, the -Otarama stabbing case, and two charges of criminal assault.