LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8948, 4 August 1892, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT,— Banco. Wednesday. [Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Marsh v. Heckley.—This was a motion by Mr. Burton for an order to defendant for the delivery to the plaintiff of certain books, papers, and documents. Mr. Baume appeared for the defendant. Mr., Burton, in opening the case, read the summons. The defendant had lodged the books with the Registrar of the Court, and disclaimed any ownership in the books (The Contemtemporary Gallery of Art). Mr. Burton said the construction of rule 291 would, he feared, give the court some difficulty, as the question had nob previously arisen in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. He contended that the rule entitled them to relief, owing to the admissions by the defendant. The court had already made an order thafe the books should be placed in the custody of the Registrar, and what was sought now was a further order that the books, &c., should be delivered to Mr. Marsh, and he said he should endeavour to convince the Court that admission made in a statement by the opposite party should be treated as if made in affidavits. His Honor said that what the Court had to decide was, who were the proper parties to whom these books should be delivered, and he could not decide that on affidavits. Mr. Button quoted numerous authorities, and asked His Honor to decide to whom those books belonged, and he had the power to do so. His Honor did not think he had the power to do so onfaffidavits, and if he had|he would be unwilling to exercise it. He was asked to decide this question on affidavits, and that ho should not do. That was a question for a jury to decide. He did nob call on Mr. Baume to reply, and the motion was dismissed. Mr. Baume applied for costs, and Mr. Burton opposed, or, in the alternative, asked that if costs were allowed, they should be costs in the cause when the merits of the case were before the Court. His Honor allowed £5 5s costs.

Divorce. Teasdale v. Bushe. —In this case Mr. Hesketh appeared for tho respondent to apply that the petitioner should give security for the respondent's costs. Mr. Burton appeared for Mr. Teasdale. The question was, whether an order should bo made to guarantee payment of the respondent's costs. His Honor decided that he should stay proceedings for six months unless £17 costs were paid, and £70 lodged in Court by the petitioner to secure payment of respondent's costs.

POLICE COURT.—Wednesday. [Before Dr. Giles, K M.] Alleged Valueless Cheque.—Henry Whittaker Duval was charged that, on July 20, ho did wilfully and knowingly, by a certain false pretence, to wit, a valueless cheque, obtain of and from one Robert Fawcett the sum of £1 19s, with intent to cheat and defraud him of the same. On the application of. Sergeant Gamble, the case was remanded until Monday next. . Stealing Palings.Mary Anderson and Mary Clarke were charged that, on August 2, they feloniously stole a certain quantity of timber, of the value of 2s 6d, being a portion of a fence, f 'ne property of Alexander McArfchur. Accused both pleaded guilty to the charge. The facts of the case as stated by Sergeant Gamble were, that the accused were seen from the verandah of Queen's College breaking off the tops of the palings of the fence and putting them into a sack. Accused were followed to their house, and information given to the police, who entered the house and found some of the palings in the fire. Accused also had some palings in their possession, the property of Mr. Hoffman, , and a further charge would be laid against them. One of the accused stated that she saw some boys taking the palings, and that she did not know that it was wrong to do so. Dr. Giles said this was no excuse, but as neither of the accused had been before the Court previously, ho would take a lenient view of the case, and give them the option of a fine. Accused were fined 20s each, and the costs of the timber 2s 6rl, or in default 14 days' imprisonment with hard labour.

Dirty Yards.—Lizzie Stadley was fined 20s and costs with an alternative of seven days' imprisonment for allowing the yard attached to premises in her occupation to be in a filthy state. James Jackman was fined 5s for allowing the back yard of an unoccupied house owned by him to be in an unclean condition. Mr. Geo. Goldie appeared on behalf of the City Council in both these cases.

Maintenance Case.—William A. Marflitt was charged with having failed to comply with an order of the Court, made in February, 1890, by permitting the sum of £55 to be in arrears. There was no appearance of the defendant, and the case was heard in his absence. John Strathearn, visiting officer of the Charitable Aid Board, deposed that on February 26, 1890, an order was made against the defendant to contribute the sum of 5s each towards the support of his three children—Jessie, Alice, and Walter. These three children were now being maintained by the Board, ab a cost of £1 per week. Defendant spent in drink all the money he earned. On one occasion defendant fell into the harbour whilst under the influence of liquor, and was only fished out in time to save his life. Dr. Giles sentenced the accused to two months' imprisonment, with hard labour.