SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXII, Issue 13603, 24 November 1904, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SESSIONS. Wednesday, November 23. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Dcmiuston.) The civil sessions of tho Supreme Court wore resumed at 10 a.m. BRADBURY v. M’OLATCHIE. The case of Bradbury v. M'CTatehie, a, claim for £2500 damages, was resumed, Mr Dougs,ll appearing for tho plaintiff, and. Mr’Stringer, with him Mr Kippc.nborgcv, for tho defendant. Mr Wilding was present to watch the case on behalf of the Christchurch Tramway Company. The) evidence, which, was concluded on the previous dry, was that on June 29 a collision occurred; between tho 6.15 p.m. tram to Sumner and; a, coal-cart belonging to tho defendant, M’Clatdhie. As a result, Evelyn Laura Bradbury sustained serious injuries, for which she claimed £2OOO damages, and her husband, Richard Arthur Bradbury, claimed £SOO, as a recompense for the financial loss caused him, and tho loss of his wife's society. The plaintiff sought to prove that tho accident was due to the negligence of the driver of the coalcart, and the affirmative defence set up was that the collison was duo to tho fault of tho Tramway Company, in that tho car which was in collision was off the line, and ran into the cart. His Honor now summed up. The jury retired at 12.35 p.m., his Honor's summing up having lasted an hour and a half. Tho jury returned at 1.40 p.m. and gave a verdict in favour of the plaintiffs, holding that the tramcar was on the line when the collision occurred. The damages were assessed at £750 for Mrs Bradbury and £250 for her husband. Judgment was given for the plaintiffs for the amounts, as assessed by the jury, together with tho costs of the--action and witnesses’ expenses. . " ROLLITT v. M’CLATCHIE. The action of Rollitt v. M’Clatchie, a claim arising out of the same tram accident, was next called. Margaret Rollitt claimed the sum of £SOO for injuries received on tho occasion of the collision between the tram-car and the defendant’s carl. It had been previously agreed that the question of the negligence should be decided on the result of the case of Bradbury v. M’Clatchie, and evidence should be restricted to the question of injury. Mr Dougall, who appeared for the plaintiff, stated that the case had been settled, and would be withdrawn. Mr Stringer, with him Mr Kippenberger, appeared for the defendant. Mr Stringer gave notice that the action of Idiens v. the South British Insurance Company, a claim for £3OB 7? for work done, had been settled. IN DIVORCE. i NANKERYIS V. NANKERVIS. Thomas Nankervis, dealer, applied for the dissolution' of his marriage with his wife, Betsy Nankervis. on the ground of her desertion. Mr Loughrey appeared ior the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent. Tho petitioner gave evidence that he was married in 1875, and his wife left him five years later. In 1886 "she returned, but went, away again eighteen months later, and since then he had been unablo to learn 'anything of her. In reply to his Honor, the petitioner said that on the first occasion his wife took-a situation as a barmaid. When she returned they got on very well together, and ho made no inquiries as to how she had been living. His Honor said that corroboration was required by law in any application for divorce. Ho would look -into the matter, inquiring into the question of corroboration. ’ j GRIMWOOD v. GRIMWOOD. Agnes Ethel Grimwood petitioned for the dissolution of her marriage with her husband. ' Mr' Browii’ appeared in support of. the. petition; and there was no appearance of the respondent. 1 The petitioner gave evidence that she was married to the respondent in 1897, and lived with him at Southbrook. He lost his work, and she went to live with her father, at Springston. She lived partly with her father and partly with her husband, joining the latter when ho was in employment. In 1899 they were in Foxton, and returned together to Lyttelton. She went to Springston, her husband having promised to follow her in a day or two. He did not do so, and she had since heard nothing of him. Before his desertion he only partly supported her. Hugh Stacc, father of the petitioner, stated that ho had made inquiries, and could find no trace of the, respondent. A decree nisi was granted, returnable in three, months, the petitioner to have the custody of the child of the marriage., CUSACK v. CUSACK. Danied Cusack petitioned -for the dissolution of his marriage with Jan-et Cusack on the ground of misconduct. Mr Hoba-n appeared for the petitioner; and there was no appearance of the respondent. The petitioner stated that) he was married in April, 1890, and there were throe children of the marriage. The parties were on good terms until the month of July in the preaant year. One night his wife left him suddenly, and on the following morning ho received a letter from her.. He wrote, asking her to return,, but she replied that she would stay away for a week. A few clays later he saw- bis wife sitting in the house of a man named Rainbow, and a month afterwards he received another letter from her, admitting her guilt. John Caldwell, brother-in-law of the petitioner, gave similar evidence. His Honor said that there was no suggestion of collusion, and the case seemed clear. A decree nisi would be granted, returnable in three months, with costs, on the lowest scale. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, November 23. At the Supreme Court to-day Gustavo Williams, on several charges of theft and of having skeleton keys in bis possession, was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. ..a - Justice Edwards said that no doubt tho accused was a dangerous and expert housebreaker. NELSON, November 25. The Supremo Court sittings opened today. John Ryan,- charged with tire theft of jewellery and 24s in money at VVaimangaroa, in the Westport district, pleaded guilty, and was granted probation, the money, to bo returned and costs (£o 6s) paid. William Arthur Dorridant was charged with having shot and stolen a. sheep at Peppina Island. The defence was that the sheep was shot at Wangamoa, and was a wild one. Accused was acquitted. This concluded the criminal business. WELLINGTON, November 23. Tho criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were opened to-day by Mr Justice Cooper. Edward C. Luff, charged with opening postal packets at Napier when employed as a railway cadet, was ordered to come up for sentence when called upon. At the Supreme Court to-day John Moffitt and! Henry Charles Faulkner, young men who had pleaded guilty in the Lower Court , to breaking and entering To Aro House and stealing, £lO in cash, and 5s worth of stamps, came up for sentence. There being previous convictions against Moffitt be was sentenced to three years' imprisonment with hard labour. Faulkner was remanded for sentence till to-morrow. Archibald M’Lend, a seaman, aged 42, was sentenced do six montlis’ hard labour for stealing a watch. Oscar Middleton Hawson, accountant, aged 30, was found guilty of misappropriating money of his employer at Shannon and was remanded for sentence. Frederick Middleton, jockey, aged 46, pleaded guilty to breaking and entering the property of *T. Basting, at Palmerston North, and stealing a set of harness and a bridle, also to the larceny of carpenters’ tools, belonging to Edwarh Eareo, Palmer-

stem, and a set of harness, belonging to John Masters, Palmerston. Prisoner was remanded till to-morrow pending) the Probation' Officer’s report.