LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXI, Issue 6999, 23 April 1884, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—JUDGE'S Csaitbbes. Tuesday, 22.\-d April, 1884. [Before Hr. Justlco Gillies.!

His Honor sat ia Chambers this morning and disposed of severs! formal applications. Probate and Administration.—Ob the motion o£ Mr. JE.. Cooper it was ordered that the. property of Mary Huxtable bo vested ia the Public Trustee, .Oa the motion of Mr. Dewes, order was made to renew order ef administration in the estate of Gregor MeGregor,. deceased. ■ On the motion of Mr. Dufaur. probate was granted of the will of John Gall, deceased. On the motion of Mr. E. Heaketb, probate was granted of the will of Duncan McKay, deceased ; also of the will of Chas. Snowden. On the motion of Mr. Speed, probate was granted of the will of Fredk. Staff, deceased. On the motion of Mr. Browning, order was made to register copy of the will of Edward Withers, deceased. On the motion of Mrl George, order waß made to register copy of 'the will of Edward Graham MoMinn. On tbo motion of Mr. Thome, letters of administration of the estate of George - Baird, with , will annexed, was granted. In the estate of Chas. Knox Russell, on the motion of Mr, C. F. .Buddie, a similar order was made. In the estate of Alexander Marr, on the motion of Mr. James Russell, a similar order was made. . Divorce and Matrimonial Causes.— Lamb v. Lamb and another.—Mr. E. Hesketh for the petitioner, Mr; T. Cotter for the respondent. This was a petition for dissolution of the marriage, on the ground of the wife's adultery with the co-respondent. The answer to the petition was a denial of the act of adultery.—Mr. E. Hesketh applied for ai special jury, if It was tha intention of the respondent and co-respondent that the issue of faot be tried by a jnry. The only issue of fact was adultery or no adultery. He would be satisfied that the case should be tried by the Court without a jury.—Mr. Cotter said he. was indifferent as to whether the case should be tried by a special or common jury, so loDg as it was tried by a jury. He would not object to the petitioner being at the expense of a special jury if ; it pleased him.—Mr. E. Hesketh said it'was slso'a part of his application that .His' Honor should appoint the time and place of hearing. — His Honor said that common and special jurors wore now mixed np. He understood from the Registrar that all jurors fer trial of causes were now common jurors, that special jurors were selected from common jurors. It would therefore make no difference if the case were tried by a common jury.— Ordered that the cause be tried at the next civil sittings of'the Supreme Court by a common jury. - ~ Be .Offer v. Ofjer.—This was a petition for dissolution of marriage by the wife on the ground of the husband's adultery.—Mr. .E. Hesketh appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Theo. Cooper for the respondent.—This was an application to take the direction of His Honor as to the mode of triaL There were no co-respondents joined with the respondent.: : Tfhere was no application for a jury. It was ordered that the case should' be tried without a jury at the next civil sittings of the Supreme Court. .. r- - Glebes v.. Samokl— Libel.— This case has caused considerable interest throughout the whole of'the colony. The damages are laid by the plaintiff, who is a medical practitioner at New Plymouth, at'£ssoo. The defendant is ' a solicitor practising at the same place. The alleged libel was contained in a correspondence between the defendant and'the plaintiff in respect to the alleged disappearance of-two ten pound notes from the. bed ohamber of .the late Dr. Sinclair. The libellous words were contained in a telegram, and were get out as follows "Sou hypothecated wife's (meaning thereby plaintiff's wife) property to the bank, and then conveyed it to Fox (meaning thereby that the plaintiff afterwards conveyed the same' to a person named Fox) for what I suspect to be a fictitious consideration, and it is rumoured that you are about to abscond, but I have taken steps to prevent that."—Mr."E. Hosketh said that several very important questions were involved in this triaL There waß first the question of publication, viz., was the sending this telegram to the plaintiff a -publication, of the libel 1 -It. was-not alleged that there was any further "publicity. Then there was the question whether the defendant .was within bis privilege as solicitor ar.d performing a duty which he was bound to perform as a professional man, and according to his duty as an,officer of the Supreme Court. There were-of' course other issues, viz., whether the words themselves amounted to a criminal- libel; - He applied that the case should be tried by a special jury. His Honor thought that the case was one that ought to be tried by special jury, and made an order accordingly^ Boswell v. Samuel—Slander. — This was an action arising out of the relations of the parties which would appear to have been brought about- by the case jhst mentioned.- In this case also the damages were laid at £5500. The defendant is the same person named as defendant in the last-case. The libellous words in this case were : "Boswell has embezzled his partner's money, and criminal proceedings are to be taken against him " (meaning; thereby that the plaintiff had |been guilty of a criminal offence). These words were spoken at a meeting of .the Harbour Board -of -New Plymouth.—Mr. Hesketh'applied'that this case be also tried by a speoial jury.—Order made in terms of application. , ■ Charging" Order — Mecklenbebg" V. Sale. —Mr. Napier moved that a charging order nisi herein be absolute, and.for an order in terms further prayed for by Judge's summons.—Mr. C. F. Buddie appeared to oppose the motion^—lt- appeared that a certain sum of money (£SO) had ' been deposited in the Bank of iNew Zealand to be paid out to one Sale (defendant), in sums not exceeding 30s per week until the fund should be exhausted. It was ascertained, however, that the money was deposited by a third party, and the order to; pay might be revoked at any time.—His- Honor doubted whether, tha deposit having being- made and some of ths money having been paid under the arrangement, there could be a revocation. Moreover, there would be an actual interest in the money, that is to say, something more 'than even a contingent interest, held by the person to whom it was to be paid. He saw no reason why" the rule should not be made, absolute,—Ordered accordingly. POLICE COURT:—Tuesday. [Before H. G. Seth Smith, Esq., KM.] — Larceny.—Robert, Templp - was bronght up on three charges of larceny,'viz.: (1) stealing a pair of trousers and singlet, worth 245, the property of George Gain j' (2) overooat, ring, and looking-glass, worth 455, the property, of William Angelo; and (3) a blanket, worth 10s, the property of John Kerr. Sergeant White appli* for a remand, as the whole of the property had not-, been recovered. Remanded for eight days. Rowor Conduct.—Thomas Cain, charged with being drunk and disorderly, was 1 also charged with assaulting Constable Ward, and also with damaging his trousers and shako, to the extent of £2 1b 6d. He pleaded guilty to the three charges. Constable Ward'gave evidence as to the facts. He the prisoner in Queen-street, and ' prisoner became violent, and,. resisted, -...but -he got assistance of a barman of t£e United .Service Hotel, and in the struggle the prisoner kicked and' bit the witness and tore his uniform. He was fined 20s and costs; with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment, for the first offence; 10s and costs for the assault, and to pay the damage, or in default 14 days' imprisonmentthe- sentences to be concurrent. , ■ Horse at . Large.—George Knight was oharged with allowing a horse, to wander in Albert Park. He pleaded guilty. It was quite accidental that the horsu was there, and he had already had to pay £3, for the damage done, besides which his horso was injured." Fined 5s and costs. : ""■ Unughted Hoarding.—Robert Jenkin3on was., charged .with, failing .to keep a hoarding in Shortfand, Queen, and Fort Streets (the hoarding round thelTew_Zealand- Insurance Company's new building), lighted.;, Mr. S. Hesketh appeared for f the defence, and pleaded not guilty. - The hoarding, as explained by Sergeant -White, was erected by Mr. Jenkinson, during his csni tract for 'laying the foundation; Sine? its completion, another contract'''waß let to lMr. 'Maguire, who did not .maintain-the light, and Mr. Jenkinson thought ho was not called on to maintain a light onit. 1 T He understood ..there was a contract' by Mr; Jenkinson. to keep the hoarding.lighted, and to produce this he should ask for,a remand. Mr. Hesketh could not see' what any contract with ths Insurance Company and Mr. Tenkinson had to do,with the case. This was a o»se between the City Council and Mr. Jenkinson, and he objected to any remand, as

he had a complete answer to the charge. The fact was that Mr/Jenkinson had nothing to do with the boarding since March, audit was now in the - possession ef other patties. . His Worship ruled that the case should proceed. Constable Keany proved the fact that the hoarding bad-no light on it from the Bth of April. He had noticed for a fortnight that it was. not lighted while he was on night duty. -He wa& cross-examined with : a viewof showing that there were 5*9 lamps all round the hoarding, so that there was ample light.- Mr. Maguire was the' present contractor; and Mr. Jenkinaon hadnotbeaa carrying on work there lately, Mr.'Hesketh submitted that, by-law section .31 did not apply, and addressed the Court at some length, and contended that it waa not ntccssary to fix a light on a hoarding on whioh a blaze of light fell, tha object of the light 3 being to prevent accidents.' Mr. Jenkinaon ' deposed that he had the ''eontract for .the concrete foundations of the New Zealand Insurance Company's building, aad ts' carry ob that work he got permits from the City ConnciL He finished his contract on the Ist or 2nd of March, but retained possession till a later date on account of not .having obtained his certificate. .He paid for the gas to the 3rd of Marob, and had not been charged since. He continued possession till the 11th or 12tb, .when Mr. Maguire (the contractor for the superstructure)'took possession, by taking away the bars of the opening at fort-street, and sin Co then.'he_had no control over tha..place. It was lit up to the time witness was pud. Cross-examined : The hoarding was erected by the workmen of the Evening Star, under the direotion of Mr. Anderson, the City Engineer. He could not remove the hoarding, as he had no instructions from the architeot, and, besides, it was taken' forcible pos« session of by. Mr. Maguire. Mr. ,3?. A. Philips, Town Clerk, was for to give evidence regarding Mr.. Maguire's 'permit, but; Mr. Besketh announced that no had made-inquiries, and did not now propose to call any evidence as to Mr. B&aguire's tenure, ' but leave the case as it stood. His Worship thought there was a sufficient answer to the charge, for the City Council could never have 1 intended'that the defendant should light the i hoarding after he had ceased to have control of it. .. The case was dismissed. Neglected Child.—J£mily Hayson, * girl 12 years of age, was brought up as a ' negleoted child within the meaning of the Act, and was committed to the Industrial School. / .-...