LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXV, Issue 9134, 16 August 1888, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—Banco. Wkdnesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Gillies.]

Perkins v. Mander and Worker.—Writ of Injunction. —Mr. Thoo. Cooper appeared in support of an application for a writ of injunction. It was an ex parte application to restrain the defendant from trespassing on his land. The plaintiff was the owner of certain land in Tauhoa, and the defendant (Mander) owned certain bush land adjoining, and the defendant Worker was in his employ. The defendants cut down a quantity of timber, which they threatened to haul through plaintiff's land, and he prayed that they might be restrained. The writ of injunction was granted. Kaiiiit Valley Railway Company v. James Nimmo.—This was an application for a writ of injunction to restrain the defendant (the. plaintiff in a claim for compensation against the Company) from proceeding with his claim. Mr. E. Hesketh appeared for the Company in support of the application, and Mr. Theo. Cooper with Mr. Stone for the defendant. Mr. Hesketh, in opening the case, said it was a motion to restrain the defendant from proceeding with a certain claim for compensation made under the provisions of the Public Works Act, ISB2. The statement of claim set forth that the company was formed for the construction of the railway, and Messrs. Vaile and Douglas, of Auckland, were attorneys for the defendant. That the company took, for the purpose of constructing the railway, 53 acres 3 roods, portion of blocks known as Kaihu No. 1, Kaihu No. 3, and Kaihu No. 4, in due and regular course, and did all that was required, and carried on tho work of constructing the railway. That at that lime, and up to April, 18S5, Blocks Nos. 1 and 3 were owned by the New Zealand Fibre Company, and that certain aboriginal natives were the owners of Kaihu No. 4 up to April, 1885, when the land was sold by auction in Auckland, and purchased for the defendant, Mr. Nimmo, and for Mr. Tinne, but that when they did purchase, it was with the full knowledge of the taking of the land by the company. The plaintiff subsequently claimed £3742 compensation, and the claim not being admitted, he applied to have it heard by a court of compensation. The defence admitted the preliminaries, and that Vaile and Douglas were the authorised agents of the defendants, but" alleged that when in September, 1883, the company entered on the land it was only for the purpose of having a survey made, and that when this was made the necessary plans were lodged and notices given, but the defence denied that the plaintiff company took the land, and proceeded with the construction of the railway till the 31st of January, 1887, when a contract was let, and they then entered on and took the land. They admitted that up to April, 1885, the Fibre Company and the natives were owners of the land, but denied that they were the owners at the time the company entered upon and took the land under the Public Works Act, and further the defendant pleaded that the plaintiff company had mistaken their remedy in applying for the writ of injunction. The pleadings were very lengthy. Mr. Hesketh concluded a very lengthy argument by urging that on the authorities he had quoted sufficient grounds were shown that tho injunction should issue. His Honor pointed out that the first notice was to provide for a limit of deviation. Only the centre line was laid down in the plan, and there was no provision for the portion within those limits of deviation which they proposed to take. The claimant could not know what was taken until it was actually taken. Mr Hesketh submitted that the effect of the statute was that they had taken the land within the deviations as shown in the books and plans. Mr. Cooper replied at considerable length on the points of law, and the authorities cited by Mr. Hesketh. The application for injunction was dismissed with costs, £15 15s.

Kaihu Railway Company v. Tinne.— This was an exactly similar application, and beiru ruled by the other case, it was not proceeded with. The Court then adjourned until next morning.

POLICE COURT.— Wednesday.

[Before Dr. Giles, R.M.) Drunkenness. —There were three persons charged with this offence, and fined in various sums.

No Lawful Means.—John Gingo, a Hindoo, was charged with having no lawful visible means of .support, under the Police Offences Act, 1884, section 20, subsection 1. Mr. Strathern, representing the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board, stated thattho man had been kept by the Board since June 14. lie had tirst been sent to the Hospital, and from there to the Refuge, whence he was discharged for violontconduct and abusive language. He had been subsequently boarded out in a private house, with an old lady named Mrs. Searle, upon whom he had committed a violent assault, and rendered her afraid of her life in consequence. The defendant, on being asked what he had to say, said ho did not desire to swear by five or six gods, but by one (iod, and then went on to make an incoherent statement to the effect that he was a good man, and that people had been lying about him. He wanted to get work if he could. The Resident Magistrate decided to give him another chance, and dismissed the case. As the accused left the Court he bestowed anything but a benevolent look upon Inspector JBroham, who had conducted the case.

Stray Horse. —Adam Emerail pleaded guilty to allowing a horse to stray in victoria Road, Devonport, on xVugust 7, and was lined 5s and costs.

Failing to Support.—Henry John H. Coupland was charged with failing to support his wife, Lena Helen Coupland. Mr. Napier appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty, while Mr. Strathern represented tho Hospital and Charitable Aid Board. The complainant stated she was married in the Catholic Cathedral, October 4, 1871, by Father McDonald, to defendant, and they had had four children, one of whom was alive. They lived together till 1876, when defendant left witness, and sent her a letter saying he would nob have anything more to do with her. For three weeks past the only support witness had had came from the Hospital and Charitable Aid Board. In cross - examination witness admitted that when defendant left her he said he would send for her, but added ho had not done so. Witness admitted she had had two illegitimate children, and having lived with a. man whom she named. Defendant had maintained his own boy. Witness had lived o\er nine years with another man as his mistress. She had been in general service at the Crown Hotel, where she had occasionally served drinks in private rooms. John Strathern deposed lie had known the parties since they were married in 1871. On September 14, 1872, the complainant had a protection order granted. In July 21 this year she made application to the Charitable Aid Board. Witness found her destitute with two children. She had been turned out of a house because she could not pay the rent. The Board had decided to ask the Court to say whether the husband or the Charitable Aid Boanl should support the complainant. Mr. Napier suggested that the woman should support herself. George Turnbull Niccol deposed that defendant was running a vessel of his on thirds. Defendant took two-thirds, and paid crew and all expenses. But of late they had done little, and defendant could not have more than 30s or 35s per week. Mr. Napier addressed the Court, stating the information was bad, that it did not disclose any offence, nor did it follow the words of the statute. The word "wilfully" was left out before failing to support his wife, and this omission had been hold to be fatal ; also the evidence had disclosed gross conduct on the part of the wife. The Resident Magistrate agreed with defendant's counsel, and said the father of the illegitimate children should have been proceeded against before the husband. The Resident Magistrate dismissed the case.

Failing to Provide. —John Knapman was charged with failing to support his wife, Jane Knapman. The defendant pleaded guilty, alleging, however, he had had no work lately, and was unable to get any. Mr. Strathern appeared on behalf of the Charitable Aid Board, deposing that he knew defendant and his wife, that the wife had frequently had to appeal to the Charitable Aid Board to keep herself and childrer from starving during die last six months. The defendant had taken the money he earned to get drink with. Defendant had been employed as a carter by Mr.

Craig. The wife went out charing. Henry Dunnet, book-keeper for Mr. Craig, contractor, and Ann Davies also gave evidence. The complainant nofc being present, the case was adjourned till Saturday next. Nuisun'cks.—There were also a number of nuisance cases disposed of, the report of which will be found in another column.