SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume XLVI, Issue 2649, 18 May 1923, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

His Honour, Sir John Sahnond, presided at the session o£ the Supreme Court yesterday. A case in which W. R. Mayes (Mr Jacobs) brought suit against Wm. Petrie (Mr Ongley) for £l2O 3/2, alleged to b G duo on the erection of a dwelling, was proceeded with. De. fendant counter.claimcd for £256 for alleged loss and expenses. Th e case had been referred to an independent referee. His Honour adopted the Referee's report giving judgment for the plaintiff for’£l2o 3/2 and for the defendant on the counterclaim for £7O IS/. Plaintiff would bo allowed costs, but there would be no costs on the counterclaim. In this connection his Honour remarked that ther c had been elaborate and costly litigation on, a claim which could have been settled before a Magistrate. DECREES ABSOLUTS, Decrees absolute in divorce were granted as follows: — Andrew Hanna (Mr Merton), of Auckland, solicitor, v. Maud Percy Hanna, 'Palmerston North, (Mr Ongley), decree nisi made absolute,: and order for maintenance at £2O per ( month. Bessie Davey, Palmerston North (Mr Jacobs) v. Charles Davey, Wanganui, decree absolute, with custody of the child to the mother. Jane Elizabeth Carver, of Napier, v. Thomas Henry Carver, of Napier, coachbuildcr, decree absolute, with custody of the child to petitioner. A VOLUNTARY WITNESS. Lelia M. Pennell (Mr Lloyd) sought dissolution of her marriage with David B. Pennell on the ground of adultery. Petitioner, in evidence, said she left her husband in 1920 because he illtreated her and allowed her insufficient food and clothing. She went to liv e with her parents, taking her two children with her, and later took a position. She took action against her husband at Christchurch under the Destitute Persons’ Act, and he was brought before the Magistrate there, This was the only time she had sefm him since she left him. Voluntary evidence was given by a female witness as to her misconduct with respondent. She asked that publication of her name be prohibited, as she was a woman living happily with her husband.

His Honour said he was unable to prohibit publication of witness’s name. However the request was a fair one, and he. would ask the press to comply with it.

Witness, in reply to his Honour, said her reason for wishing to give evid. enco was that she had lent respondent £IOO on a promissory note, which he had not repaid. She thought he was a man “who should b c brought to book.” Witness gave details of her relations with respondent, with whom she had lived for a week. She had written to her husband, who had been in hospital, and told him what she had done. He had forgiven her, and they were now living happily. Her husband was aware that she was giving that evid. euce. His Honour said he did not alto, gothcr approve of evidence given by parties to adultery. It was admissible but would have to bo corroborated. The case was adjourned until to.day. counsel intimating that further evidence would be called. IN BANKRUPTCY. The following were granted dis charges; Walter Anderson, Levin, farmer (Mr Inncs); Victor Hansen, Danncvirke, farmer (Mr Cooper); Arthur Edward Rees, company mana. ger (Mr Merton). DISPUTE OVER SECURITY. A. J. Palmer and Co., Palmerston North, seed merchants, claimed from the New Zealand Distributing Company, Peilding, £265 10/2 for the alleged sale of fowls covered by security held by plaintiffs. Mr Cooper appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Innes for defendant. In the statement of claim, Plaintiffs set out that they were the holders of a security over 1510 fowls and 2000 day-old chicks, the property of Stanley Hutchison. The said Stanley Hutchi. son had defaulted under the security, and the plaintiffs were entitled to seize the fowls. In or about the month of January the defendant company hold an auction sale of fowls, poultry, and goods and chattels of the said Stanley Hutchison. The fowls referred to in plaintiffs’ security were sold at the sale, and defendants received th e proceeds, amounting to £265 10/2. The defendants alleged that the plaintiffs’ security was invalid and that th c fowls referred to formed part of the security given to defendants by Stanley Hutchison. They admitted conducting the auction sale, but it was held on November 27th and 2Sth, 1922. They denied that the fowls described in thc statement of claim were in. eluded in the sale.

The case resolved itself into legal argument on points of law. Stanley Hutchison deposed that the fowls mortgaged to the defendant com.

pany were not those secured to the plaintiff company. At this stage judgment was reserv-

APPEAL CASES SALE OF A CAR, S. A. Lyons (Mr Lloyd) appealed against the decision of Mr S. L. P. Free, in a case heard at Pahiatua, in which appellant had claimed £l5O damages from the Wairarapa Farmers’ Co-operative Association (Mr McShorry) for alleged breach of contract and misrepresentation in connection with the sale of a car. In the course of lengthy Iggal argument, it was explained that defendants had undertaken that the car would do 25 miles to the gallon of petrol. This they had admitted in the Lower Court. Plaintiff contended that the car did not do 25 miles to the gallon, and the defendants that it could be made to do so. The Magistrate, in the lower Court, had based his judgment on the latter contention. His Honour reserved his decision. A CASK OP WHISKY. Arthur Hosking, engineer,Palmerston North, appealed against the decision of Mr S. L. P. Free, S.M., in a case heard at Pahiatua, in which appellant had been defendant, and Frederick George Bourke, hotelkeeper, (respoudgut), had been plaintiff. In the lower Court, respondent, as plaintiff had claimed from appellant, as defendant, £BB 8/7, Respondent alleged that ho had purchased from appellant as part of the stock.in, trade of the Rutland Hotel, Pahiatua, two quarter casks of Australian whisky for £176 17/2. When he took over the hotel he found that three casks which were supposed to be two of whisky ahd one of port wine were actually two or port wine and one of whisky. Appellant, in his defence in the Lower Court, contended that re. spondent had assessed the stock himself, and that two years had elapsed between the time he took over the hotel and the time he complained to defendant.

In the previous hearing the Magistrate had given judgment for the full amount claimed.

After argument on these lines by counsel his Honour reserved judgment.