SUPREME COURT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVIII, Issue 18574, 29 November 1920, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

OTVTL SITTING. The civil sittings of the Supremo Court wore continued on Saturday before his Honor Mr Justice Herclmanu ARREARS OF ALIMONY. Mr W. J. Hunter, for Edith Elizabeth Bowen, moved for a writ of attachment to issue againßt Harold Charles Bowen. The parties wero divorced. An order for alimony was made against defendant, but the payments have gat into arr Gar. Sir F. D. Sargent appeared for defendant. Mr Hunter said that on September 26, 1919, an alimony order was made against defendant for £1 10s a week About ;C33 security for an order macia by tbo Magistrate's Court had been paid into Court. When payments were In arrear an application for writ of attachment to issue was made, and defendant paid. His payments fell l bac.c again, ana a further application was made, and defendant agreed to pay regularly in future 5s a week off tho arrears. Three days after that defendant married again. In October last ho was in arrears to tho extent of £BB 10s. Plaintiff, with her two children, lived with her parents. The alimony of £1 10s a week was all sho had for herself and her children. She helped in thehouso, but he thought sho was not paid by her parents, who wore not well off. Defendant's excuse was that, as his wife was in delicate health, he could not help falling into arrears. Ho was a motor driver and mechanic, nnu was employed in Gisborne. His Honor said that be did not wish to send defendant to gaol; he wished to give him another chance. It was a question that should be looked into very carelmiy. Mr Hunter said that the issue of the writ evidently was the only means of forcing defendant to comply with the alimony ordei. His. Honor: Has he no property! 1 Mr Hunter: He inherited property from his father, but he was a reckless spendthrift, and ran througSi his money and lie has practically nothing left.

Mr Sargent said that defendant earned £5 a week, on which ho had to maintuin himself, his wife and a child. That sum represented about £3 10s in pre-war timeß. After paying £1 10s alimony he had little to live on. In allotting alimony a wifo's power to maintain herself must be considered. In this case plaintiff was doing nothing. It was stated that plain tiff was about thirty years of age and in good health. Mr Hunter said that defendant had failed to pay alimony when he was single, and in the circumstances _he should not have taken on fresh obligations by marrying again. Counsel asked for an order as a warning to defendant. His Honor said that a man had a right to nfarry after ho was divorced. Ho would like to know more about tho case beforo lio issued a writ of attachment. If defendant did not make satisfactory arrangements his Honor would have to punish him. Mr Sargent could let him know that. Mr Hunter: His first wife and family should he a firßt charge on his income. His Honor: I will not express an opinion on the question now, but will let it stand over until January.

CONTRACT CANCELLED. In Michael Joseph Lynskey v. William Henry Tubman and John David Butlnr, Mr AI. J. 0 reason, for plaintiff, asked for a formal order cancelling a contract and for recovery of land. Ho said that plaintiff sold a piece of land to Tubman, but there was no agreement in writing. Tubman entered into possession _ and paid an instalment. In the meantime he had mortgaged to Butler the equitable interest in tho property, in order to secure an advance, lie then deserted the property, which for some years was unoccupied. Plaintiff brought tho motion for cancellation of contract to sell and leave to resell. Butler had been paid a certain sum and consented to the order. His Honor made a decree as asked.. PARTNERSHIP DISSOLVED. An application for' an order for jh'ssolution of >artnership and for taking accounts was made by consent in John M'Moillan, sen., v. John M'Mullan, jun. Mr Sargent appeared for plaintiff and Mr w. J. Hunter for defendant. A decree was granted, the registrar to take accounts. The question of costs was reserved. The Court adjourned till 10.30 a.m. on Monday.

AUCKLAND. [Pep. Press Association'.] AUCKLAND, November 27. At the Supreme Court to-dav, before Sir Robert Stout, C. B. Bryan, found guilty of indocent assault on a young child at Oriehungn, was sentenced to fire years' reformative treatment. Kate Ronald, the self-styled daughter of a Mew York diamond merchant, who obtained £95 by false pretences from an Auckland land agent, was sentenced to four years' reformative treatment. Her counsel stated that a medical examination had disclosed a stato of mentality which would account for her eonduct. His Honor said that he had no power to commit her to a mental hospital, hut she conld be transferred by tho Prison Board or the Government. William John Marriott, on two charges of theft, was sentenced to three years' reformative detention.