LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9491, 9 October 1889, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT. —Judge's Chambers. Tuesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] I'ROBATK. Probate was granted in tho wills of John Tilsloy, Thomas Hindle, and William Caibchcori. ADMINISTRATION. Letters of administration were granted in the estates of Henry Lavery, H. R. Skardon, and William George Savage. ROBERTSON V. WILSON. Mr. Hesketli moved for directions as to service of notice of motion. The application was made under rule 458, and the matter affected was a block of native land. The question was who should be served, as a large number of natives were affected, and the application was for a writ of prohibition, and for mandamus. It was ordered that notices be served on the persons chiefly interested, and also published in the Native Gazette, and the New Zealand Gazette, also that notice be served on the Native Minister,' the Minister of Lands, and the Chief Judge of the Native Lands Court. The hearing of the case was fixed for the December sittings of the Court. TRUSTEE ACT, 1883. In the matter of the Trustee Act and R. W. Boyer, Mr. Mahony appeared in support of a petition that a time be fixed for creditors to send in their claims. An order was made that notice be advertised in the Weekly News, and the Auckland daily papers, and claims to be sent in within 14 days after the appearance of the last advertisements. MARGARET CHERRY (DECEASED). Re the estate of Margaret Cherry (deceased), Mr. Mahony moved that the prayer of the petitioner herein be granted. The petition was for authority to mortgage some of the estate. His Honor pointed out that the affidavit was irregular, and he must send it back for amendment by fresh affidavit. THORP V. TUKEKINE TE HUKERERE. Mr. Dufaur moved for a writ of execution on the judgment issued in this case. Mr., McCormick appeared in support of the motion. The judgment was signed thirteen years ago for £134, of which £34 had been paid. The order was granted as prayed. MARTINSON V. ALLEN. Dr. Laishley moved on summons in respect of questions of law to be argued. Mr. Napier appeared for Mr. Martinson and consented to the motion. The questions of law to be argued on Wednesday, the 16th instant. The order was made accordingly. CONVEYANCE FROM NATIVES. Re conveyance from natives to Alex. Duthie of part of Orere and Taupo. Mr. Earl applied for endorsement of judge's approval of sale of a share in said block by trustees for infant owners under section 5 of the Maori Real Estate Management Act. His Honor remarked that it was a curious duty to throw on the judge of the Supreme Court. He made the order as prayed. THAMES SKRICCLTURAL ASSOCIATION. Air. J. P. Campbell moved that the Official liquidator's remuneration be fixed, and costs of petitioning creditors' solicitors, and the Official Liquidator's solicitors be fixed and allowed. The application was made under the rules of the Companies Act. His Honor made an order allowing the Otlicial Liquidator £10 10s, St-petitioning creditors solicitor's costs were fixed at £10, and disbursements amounting to £5 10s 2d, and the Official Liquidator's solicitor's costs were fixed at £20, and disbursements amounting to £7. BILL OK COSTS. Re Thomas Mace Humphreys, solicitor, Air. Napier moved for an order that a bill of costs be taxed. Mr. Humphreys consented to the order, and said he was anxious to have the costs taxed as soon as possible. The Registrar said he would take the matter on Thursday, and an order was made accordingly. KHRENKREID V. GLEKSOX. Dr. Laishley moved on summons to refer the Registrar's report back for amendment. Mr. Baume appeared for the plaintiff. Dr. Laishley said the motion was to call on the plaintiff to show cause why the report should not be referred back, and certain affidavits were filed. Mr. Baume said he had no notice of any affidavits. Dr. Laishley's affidavit was read, and it showed that though he was not the solicitor on the record, he had been acting for Mr. Gleeson for several months past. Mr. Baume said these were sufficient grounds why the summons should not be heard, for there was no power for any other than the solicitor on the record to take out a summons. The authorities were clear on that point. Mr. Hesketh was the solicitor on the record. Dr. Laishley said he had no authority to use Mr. Hesketh's name. The summons was dismissed, with costs £1 Is.

POLICE COURT.—Tuesday. . [Before Dr. Giles, R.M.] Dbunkknxkss.Two persons were punished for this offence. Breach of By-laws.—David Grubb was charged with being the owner of a cart without having the registered number painted on it. Defendant said he had bought a ticket, but owing to some neglect it. had nob been put upon the cart. A line of 10s and costs was imposed. ; Ax Unhappy Married Life.—Thomas Godkin was charged with having deserted his wife and infant child, and with having failed to provide them with adequate mentis of support. Mr. Brassey appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Dufaur for the defendant. Mrs. Godkin, wife of the defendant, deposed that in April last she entered into a separation deed with her husband. This deed provided that she should receive 4s and the child 4s per week, towards their support. She and her husband had had to soparate owing to differences which commenced three weeks after marriage. Witness was unable to support herself and her child on 8s per week. She could not work as she was suffering from rheumatism. To Mr. Dufaur: Defendant at a minute's notice fixed upon the sum in the deed. Witness had often slept upon the floor of the servant's room, without any bed at all. She would not give the child to her husband if she never got a penny. She had gone to her husband at his brother's hotel ab Drury, and asked him to give her more money, and she was then willing to live with him again, as she would readily put up with a jjreat deal more for the sake of the baby. Some argument ensued upon the point as to whether the separation deed was an answer to the complaint, and His Worship suggested that the case should proceed, and that question be left for consideration afterward; The defendant, Thomas Godkin, deposed that lie was the lessee of the Drury Hotel, having taken the lease from his brother on the Ist of July. The amount in the deed of separation was fixed by the plaintiff herself. Though witness was at a loss in his business, he was still keeping up the payments. When his wife came up to Drury, she said she merely wanted him to refuse to give her any more money, and she would then know what to do. To Mr. Brassey : He was satisfied that his wife and child could not be supported on B.s a week. The witness was asked as to the state of his business, his profits, &c., but he objected to answer the questions. His Worship said that if defendant wished to convince the Court that he could not pay a certain sum, he would have to show what his means were. It would be for the defendant to consider whether publicity in regard to these matters could not be avoided by the payment of another Is or so a week. The defendant: There is no room to pay any more. In reply to further questions, witness said his profits did not exceed 8s a-week. • He was quite willing that his wife should live with him again. i His Worship said that, putting aside the question of how far this deed was an answer to the complaint, he could not make an order in the face of the defendant's offer to give his wife a home. The case was therefore dismissed.

Embezzlement.—Abel Fletcher, a lad who had at a previous sitting of the Court pleaded guilty of the embezzlement of the moneys of his employer, Margaret Grubb, was brought up for sentence. Dr. Giles said he was sorry that the probation officer did not recommend the accused as a fit person to be brought under the provisions of the Act. Mr. Madden appeared for the accused, and addressed the Court on his behalf. He said that Fletcher's brother, who was a respectable man, would give the boy a good character. There was no doubt that the accused was led to commit this theft through extravagance, and the company of young men older than himself. Mr. Madden called Thomas Fletcher, who deposed that his brother had been in his employ for two years. During that time he was steady and hardworking. He had since been led away by bad company. If the Court dealt leni-

ently with the accused witness would take him into his own family. To Mr. Broham : •Witness saw his brother, that morning at the police station, but the accused did nob then say anything about any other defalcations. His Worship, having mentioned the danger of bad company, said he was anxious to treat this case as leniently as possible, and he was sorry that he could not deal with it under the First _ Offenders Probation Act. This was just the kind of thing that led to a career of crime if treated indulgently ; on the other hand, it might have a bad effect if the lad were sent to gaol. He was determined, therefore, to give the accused the option of paying a fine, and ho accordingly fined him £4, to be paid within 14 days, and ordered that in default he be imprisoned with hard labour, for one month. He hoped that he would be able to find the money, and avoid going to gaol, and that this would be a warning to him to keep out of such trouble, as in future he would not have such an option. Breach of the Sanitary Laws.— drew Heavy was charged with having emptied a privy in the yard of his premises in Wyndham-street, on the 27th September. Mr. (ioldic, Sanitnry Inspector, who appeared for the Corporation, said this was a flagrant case. Constable O'Brien deposed that about 4 o'clock in the afternoon of the 27th ult., he was summoned to the defendant's yard, and lie then saw Heavy and another man (Churton) throwing the contents of a privy from buckets into the sower. The smell was very offensive. Samuel 'Davies deposed that the sewer mentioned was about nine yards from the back of his house. His Worship said that this was a very disgusting offence to commit, and ho fined the defendant 40s and costs, with an alternative of soven days' imprisonment, with hard labour.