LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 9239, 29 June 1893, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.-In Banco. Wednesday. l ' [Before His Ilonor Mr. Justice Conolly.] Dinah Clark v. James Aiken (judg- £ ment.) —This was an aetion for damages 3 for trespass on certain laud in Tokatoha, t Northern Wairoa, which the defendant \ claimed was a public road. The case had f been heard during the recent civil sittings, . and a great deal of evidence and argument J was heard. His Honor now delivered judg- j mont, Mr. Mahony appearing for the plain- , tiff, and Mr. Cooper, instructed by Mr. , Johnston, for the defence. In giving judg- ( ment, His Honor referred at length to the , facts and law, and said there were two ] main quest/ions. The first was whether the road laid out by Mr. D. C. Wilson was a . public road, and the second was, was the i public right to a deviation established by J user. On the first question he found that ( the road was a public road, and on that « issue he gave judgment for the defendant, < ruling that he was not liable for trespass in ' removing fences from two points, and j plaintiff was not entitled to an injunc- ( tion in regard to the other portion of the road. On the second question, after reviewing the whole of the evidence, he gave judgment for the plaintiff in regard , to the breaking down of another fence on . the deviation, as he considered user did not , give the righb as against the Crown. Judgment would bo for plaintiff Is damages , for breaking down the fence, Is for trespass, and ho ordered the restoration of the fence. Judgment was given for the defen- , dant in regard to the making down of the other fences. As each party had partially succeeded, he should not allow costs. He , reserved leave to the defendant to move for judgment with costs, bub if that courso was adopted ho suggested that it be taken to the Court of Appeal. Mr, Cooper asked to be allowed a fortnight to consider the matter before giving notice, and in the meantime ho should consult with Mr. Mahony. Mr. Mahony concurred, and the timo in which to apply for judgment wa extended to a fortnight. I Alfred William Reed v. James Stewart Cockerton (judgment). This was an action for damages for illegal distraint which had been argued at considerable length ab the civil sittings. The plaintiff was a tenant of a Mrs. Richards, who held a life interest in certain property under her husband's will. Airs. Richards mortgaged her intorest to the defendant, whose agent distrained for rent, although plaintiff had paid the rent to the trustees under notice. His Honor, after reviewing the case, gave judgment for defendant with costs on the lowest scale. Rose Ann Schnaur v. Congregational Union of New Zealand and Mr. Theo. Kissling, as District Land Registrar.— This was a motion for a wrib of injunction. Mr. Cooper said he appeared for the plaintiff, Mr. Heskebh for the Congregational Union, and Mr. Cotter for Mr. Kissling. lb was a motion for a wrib of injunction, and they had agreed to ask His Honor to allow the case to stand over till the next banco day. His Honor consented, and the case was allowed to stand over accordingly. Mollooly v. Apiata te Hama.—This was a motion for argument on a case on appeal from the Resident Magistrate's Court, Gisborne. Mr. Hesketh, who appeared for the appellant, said Mr. Cooper appeared for the respondent, and they asked His ilonor to allow the case to stand over till next banco sitting. The case was adjourned accordingly. Louis Bright v. the Hon. W. P. Reeves. —Mr. Button moved for a writ of mandamus. Mr. Button, who appeared for the plaintiff, said the Crown Prosecutor, who was to appear for the defendant, was unable to be present to-day, and he (Mr. Button) had consented to allow the case to stand over. Adjourned accordingly. Presbyterian Church Property Trustees v. Smith and Another.— This was an application for a new trial. Mr. Button appeared for the appellants, and Mr. Cotter for the respondent. The case had been tried before a jury, who found a verdict for the defendants. The action was brought by the trustees of the Presbyterian Church to recover from the defendants a sum of £300 and interest on a deed of mortgage. The money had been borrowed through the late J. M. Alexander, solicitor, and the evidence disclosed the fact that tho mortgagors were nob made acquainted with the fact that the money was obtained from this or any other trust; that they borrowed tho money from Alexander as agent for J. M. Clark, J. M. Lennox, and Thomas Peacock, and it was admitted that they paid the principal and interest to Alexander, who, instead of transferring it to tho trust fund, from which it was taken, converted tho money to his own uso, con- ! tinuing to pay the interest on the full amount of the mortgage to prevent discovery of his defalcations. The jury found for the defendants, and tho plaintiffs now applied for a new trial, on tho grounds that His Honor had misdirected the jury on several points, that evidence had been improperly admitted, and that tho verdict was against the weight of evidence. Mr. Button proceeded to argue the points of law raised in his pleas, and contended that ib had nob been proved thab Alexander was an agent authorised to receive the principal of the mortgage money, nor was there any evidence of a. general agency. He quoted numerous authorities in support of his contentions. Mr. Cotter replied, taking the points seriatim. Mr. Button replied briofly. His Honor dismissed tho application, with costs, £3 Bs. Divorce.—Hall, falsely called Tutin, petitioner, Tutin respondent. This was a wife's application for dissolution of marriage, which had been tried in camera on Monday, by His Honor, and he then, after a three-hours hearing, reserved his decision. He now said that he was satisfied thab the marriage had never beon consummated, and granted a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage with costs, and granted leave to apply to make tho rule absolute at the expiration of three months.

POLICE COURT.— Thursday. [Before Messrs. K. S. Bush, R.M. and J. H. Uaanan, J.P.J Drunkenness.— McCrory charged with being drunk in Rokeby-streeto, was fined 5s and costs, or in default twentyfour hours' imprisonment. Stray Horse.—Edmund Lardinor for allowing his horse to stray in Union-street, wa3 fined Is and costs 14s. Houses of 111-Fame.—Mary Cassidy was charged with being the reputed occupier of a house of ill-fain/), situated in Greystreet, within the City of Auckland, contrary to bye-law No. 37, section 18, of the Auckland City Council. Mr. McAlister, instructed by Inspector Hick--801), conducted the prosecution, and Mr. F. Baume appeared for the defendant, who pleaded guilty. A fine of 40s and costs 21s, with the option of seven days' imprisonment with hard labour, was inflicted. Lizzie Uorney, on a similar charge, I was fined £5 arid costs 17s, or one month's imprisonment. Catherine Whelan pleaded guilty to occupying a house of ill-fame in Cook-street, end was fined 40a and costs 148, or 14 days' imprisonment. Mary Smith, Cook-Btrcob, on a similar charge, was fined 203 and costs 13s, or 7 days' imprisonment. A charge against Annie Sinnett, of being the reputed occupier of a house of ill-fame in Grey-street, was adjourned for a week. Dr. Laishley appeared for the defendant, and submitted to the Bench that there was no case to answer, as the defendant in the summons had been charged with being the owner of the house, and there was no such an offence known to the law. Mr. McAlister replied that even so there was power to amend the information, and quoted authorities. The Bench ruled that the information might be amended, and the case was then allowed to stand over, at the request of defendant's counsel.