SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCVI, Issue 14298, 16 February 1907, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

IN CHAMBERS. Friday, February 15. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman.) His Honor Mr Justice Chapman sat in Chambers at the Supreme Court at 10 a.m. Probate was granted of the wills of the following deceased persons:— Richard J. Roberts (Mr Beattie), Thomas Leathern (Mr Leathern), 'William Holley . (Mr Stringer), Elizabeth Fisher (Mr Nicholls). An order was made for the wife’s costs (£3O) in the case of Knox v. Knox (in divorce), on Mr Graham’s application. On Mr Harper’s motion, a special jury was granted in the case of Hands aha others v Wood, and the case was Bet down for Monday, .February 23, at 10.30 a.m. Orders were also made for discovery' in the same matter, Mr Stringer, appearing for the plaintiffs and Mr Harper for the defendant. I On. Mr _ Dougall’s motion, an order was made for an extension of 'time in I Luttroll v. the D’rillsh-ed Trustees. ! Orders for discovery were made in the matter of Ingram v. Renner, Mr Weston appearing for the plaintiff, and Mr Bishop for the defendant. A decree in Cameron and another v. Cameron was amended, on Mr Johnston's motion. CIVIL SITTINGS. The Civil Sittings of the Supremo Court will open at 11 a.m. on Monday before his Honor Mr Justice Chapman. The following cases have been set down to he heard at the sessions:— Before his Honor alone. Peat (Mr Stringer) v. Curlett (Mr Bengali), to set aside deed and for £173 14s 9d. Hsnstridge (Mr Stringer) v. Waimato County Council (Mr Hamilton), for £6O damages and injunction. Million and another (Mr Beswick) v. , Belcher and others (Mr Meares), claim i £375 17s 4d for difference in area of ' land purchased. Hopkins (Mr Beewick) v. Belcher and others (Mr Meares), claim £431 15s for commission on, sales. Church Property Trustees (Mr Beewick) v. Public Trustee and another (Mr Meares), for declaration of ownership. In Divorce—ALolyneaux (Mr Johnston) v. Molyneaux and another; Murphy (Mr Dougall) v. Murphy; Jarvis (Mr Irwin) v. Jarvis; Andersen (Mr | Johnston) v. Andersen ; Proctor- (Mr j Lane) v. Proctor; Leith (Mr Johnston) v. Leith; Duke (Mr Curiingham) v. j Duke ; all for dissolution of marriage. I The Divorce matters will be taken on Monday at the conclusion of the criminal case set down for the morning. I In the following matters special days have been fixed:— Hands and other (Air Baldwin and j Mr Stringer) v. , Wood (Mr Harper), claim £11,850 damages for breach of I contract, before his Honor and a special jury of four on Monday, February 25. Grimes and another (Mr Stringer) v. Waipara Road Board and another, claim £ioo damages and injunction, Wednesday, February 27, at 10.30 a.m. Bonham (Mr Lane) v. Haokett and others (Mr Harper and Mr Rolleston), claim £SO damages and injunction, Friday, February 22. Benham (Air Lane) y. Pope and. others (Air Harper), claim £SO damages and injunction, Friday, February 22. Holdsworth (Mr Ritchie) v. England and others (Air Fuller), claim £IOO damages and injunction, Wednesday, February 20. Davie and another (Air Andrews) v. Waipara Road Board (Mr Harper), claim £BSO damages Thursday, February 28, at 10.80 a.m. ■ JSTedwilL (Air Harper) v. Eaten, and others (Air Harvey), claim £2OO damages and injunction, Tuesday, February 19. Scott Bros. (Air Stringer) y. Shipman (Air Russell) claim £2OO damages and injunction, Tuesday, February 19. Lister (Mr Bates) y. Ballon iand another (Air Hill), for specific performance of agreement, Saturday, February 23. . , JUDGAIENTS DELIVERED. His Honor gave judgment in three matters which had been recently before him. A FACTORY OFFICE DEFINED. In the matter of Peter Keddie, of Timaru, Inspector of Factories, against the South Canterbury Dairy Co., Ltd., the plaintiff had appealed against the decision of Air C. A. Wray, S.AL, disI missing an information against the re- : spondent company for failing to close its office at 1 p.m. and keep it closed For the remainder of the statutory half- ! holiday in terms of section ,23 of the : Shops and Offices Act, 1904. His Honor said that the company had its factory and office together within one enclosure on freehold laud, and could not carry on the business of the factory i lucratively if the office staff was not present when the factory was working. Any building or room in which the clerical work of a factory or shop was carried on was exempted from the terms of the Act as to closing, provided that the building or room was within uie factory or shop. The word "factory” was not defined, and the Magistrate rightly looked to the Factories Act of 1901 for .a definition. A factory was there defined as “any building, office or place in which two or more persons are employed directly or indirectly in any handicraft or in preparing or manufacturing goads for trade or sale.” In making a definition for itself a Court would probably have adopted one as wide as that given by section 61 of the Act, which provided that all the buildings, enclosures and placed treated as one factory in carrying on its operations should be deemed one and the same factory. It was argued that the word "place” could mean only a place in which productive labour was employed, but that would make the term too restrictive, excluding from the protection of the Act persons whose work was immediately connected with the productive work of a factory, but who worked in open spaces, though in co-operation with others who were under cover. It seemed to him that the definition of the Act was meant to cover the situation disclosed in the case before him, and the premises used lor office work were within the factory. The appeal was dismissed, with five guineas costs. Air AVhite (Timaru) appeared for the appellant, and Air Raymond (Timaru) for the respondent. A NEW ACT. His Honor gave his decision on an application by Air Louglinan on behalf of Annie Watson for directions in the matter of the will of Edwin Watson, deceased, her husband. His Honor said that the Testator’s Family Maintenance Act of 1906 provided that for twelve months after granting probate of a will, claimants whose right had already expired by effluxion of time should have a new right to make claims. The proviso as to time must apply only to cases of a certain class. A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE. On a summons to enforce an award, between Joseph Gaskin and James Gaskin, liis Honor said that the mode of procedure implied service on the party to be bound and the summons might bo amended to- state a new return day and served personally. Air Russell appeared in support of tho summons. [Per Press Association.] AUCKLAND, February 15. At the Supreme Court to-day, William Holland was sentenced to twelve

months’ imprisonment for robbery with violence. Mr Justice Denniston commented severely upon the defence, which made uneustained allegations against tho character of the female prosecutrix. A young man named Claude Marmont was found not guiilty on a charge of indecently assaulting a little girl at Newton and was discharged.