SUPREME COURT

Marlborough Express, Volume XLVIII, Issue 286, 9 December 1914, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

FOUR MONTHLY SESSIONS,.

CIVIL BUSINESS.

His Honor the Chief Jrjstioo, > Sir Robert Stout.)

Yesterday morning tho CouJL-t enteTon the transaction of civil business. A MOETGAGEO PRGE*ERTY.

Tho case of Samuel Edward Ford - and Sophia Iremonger v. Andrew Watson was a suit for ajossession of a house property with pn&fits, rents, aoid damages. Mr Mills explained that the defendant mortgaged "his iroperty to' S. E. Ford, the mortgage lieing executed m March, 1968, and being subject to an -existing mortgage to the State Advances Office securing a principal "sum of £170. The purpose of th© . plaintiff Forcl toss to secure the repayment of £75. -While counsel was explaining the facts the defendant intervened, (and it traaspired tiiat no defence had been filed. : His Honor said the position waj» that, no defence having been filed, he> had no power to deal with the matter ©f the defendant's objection to giye'ep, -■- -jpossession. - • ' . " •■*'.'■' The defendant sak? that he knfew. siotlnng about law^^ He was dejpjend- ; ing on equity. Ho complained abtrat the nature of a third mortgage and tho circumSitances attached to th© ■ forced sale of the property. His Honor said thatl foe could not' make a new law especially, to meet defendant's case. The defendant had made his own obligations, and not Slaving met them, was withholding property that did not belong to him. Mr- Mills represented that the plaintiffs' treatment of the defendant liad been fair and patient. Evidence was given by Jonathan I>. Iremonger as to the rental value of the property. His. Honor gave judgment for immediate possession with costs according to scale, and allowed 15s per week for the period from April 9th to the present time. -Tne claim for general damages was not persisted'with'. , ■..'.'

Bankruptcy proceedings

■ *' ' . ■ - >. •■ . ■ ■ ■ ■■ j Three applications -for" dischar£se t from^ bankruptcy wei^e; gi-anted;-; The. ■applicants were Arthur Byf6rd'!(Mr JO. H, Mills), Thomas Williams (Mr T^ F. Relling), and Frederick O. Linstrom (MrT. F. Relling). Mo- B. Wanden, Deputy Official Assignee) was in attendance. r ,

In %he tSasfc of Tk>ln&& Williaafis op* pjiorfnit was examined by Ms- W. T. Cfttarcnw&rd, appeasing lor the N.Z, Loan and Mercantile Agency Com-pbriy."'-Bills'of safe over tne stock and implements on the debtor* s farm in the Sounds district were held by the Company, and tho examination was designed, to Investigate certain featui*es of the applicant's management of his a.ffairs, especially iii reference to 'his disposal of the fruit grown in «n orchard covering five acres. Ti was e.licited' that the debtor spent £200 .in acquiring the property, and Being_ "ha-n^ioapped by a bad season and illness, came out of the speculation with £62, half of which went to his wife.

Mr Churchward asked that the order for discharge be suspended for three months on the ground that the "bankrupt had not complied with the provisions of the bills of sale. His Honor said that he did not think the applicant *.acted rightly in certain respects, but, taking the cirjjumstances into consideration, he didi *not think the case called for a suspension of the discharge. Mr Churchward: It would be a war nine to others. His Honor said *that he had been giving warnings for a long time about the gamjbling,■■form of speculation im property, bilt'they had apparently had little effect-fj A discharge would be '

DIVORCE CASES

!In the case of Te Niko Maurita j Macdonald v. Tpiti Macdonald, the petition was for permanent alimony. The petitioner had the custody of one' 1 child. „ , Mr S. P. McNab appear-ed for the petitioner, and Mr C. H. Milk for the • The Yen. Archdeacon Grace was the interpreter. Tuiti Macdonald gave evidence at length. He described himself as a laborer. He was not a native agent in the real sense of the term, though ne had acted in a number of cases in which his relatives had asked him to appear for them. Recently he had been earnifite. on tlie average £1 a week asa flax-cutter in the Manawatu district. . He was now incapacitated as the result of an accident in which his leg was broken, and he was not earning anything. He* was a Mormon preacher. When the petitioner, whom he met atTe Kuiti, married him" she knew that he had a wife married to him according to Maori custom and ta--number of children. Afterwards he left it to her to say wnether she would live with his first wife and she refused to do so. Even

to-day concubinage was / practised among fie native Mormons. Petitioner was in receipt of considerable rents from- native lands in the North.

The "petitioner, giving, evidence, said.that before the respondent married .her he; represented to Her that fre was a native' agent and,/ that his inootae was from £450 to £600 a year. These representations as to his earnings influenced her j she f^lt that she would, be well provided for. "He told her that lie had had his other wife for £■ long timej and that he desired to marry the witness. Her reason in seeking for a judicial separation from him was not that the respondent's income fell off and she did not have eb much money to spend. The real trouble so far as she was concerned was that the petitioner wanted to keep two wives going and expected her to live with the other woman. -All that she drew by way of land, rents was £16 a year, and in addition she had a free house in the North.. Jshs, with, her child, was now living with a friend1 at the Wairau Pa. His Honor said that the matter of deciding wliat order should be made for alimony Was a difficult one. He would allow costs on the lowest seal© | with^witness's. .ex£eiises-^*'if a. man | goes in for the privilege of having two I wives," remarked the Judge, "he ! Bh©«]d to have to pay .some*- • tiling." .lie question as to the amount I of alimony was deferred so that conn- ' sel.might have an opportunity of conferrittg. . .Anothei* case, in which, aai application was made for alimony, was dealt -with in. Chambers.

HAMILTON SESSIONS.

fP^BE»B Association.] HAMILTON, Dec. 8. In the Supreme Court, in : the case against Stuart Dixon, president .of tfie 'Huntly Mi«ers' Union, who was charged" with tnisappropria/fcion of union funds'; the Grand .Jury, aftei" ■6.. Ipijg deliheraiion, decided that there was no case 1 f&r trial.