LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9442, 23 February 1894, Page 3

LAW AND POLICE.

SUPREME COURT.—In Chambers. Thursday. {Before His Honor Mr. Justice Conolly.] 'robate.— Probate waa granted to the xecutora named in the wills of James Jerghan and John McDonald. Administration.—Letters of administraion wore. granted in the estate of Robert dackay and Mary McLeod. Leave to Sell Estate.—Mr. Hesketh loved for leave to sell certain real estate, he property of William Grice (deceased), lis Honor thought aa this was a large state there should be an independent tatement of valuation. He accepted the iroperty tax valuations, and the order was granted. Kerry v. Brett.—This is an actiou •roughtfor an alleged libel on the plaintiff, mblished in the Auckland Evening Star on he Bth of - December. Mr. Cooper, who ppeared for defendant, applied for an xfcension of time in which to file a defence. Jr. Napier, for the plaintiff, appeared to ippose the motion. Mr. Cooper said that ince this application was before the Court in Tuesday he had received the affidavit of dr. Kerry, which stated that he had read ] he affidavit of Thomson Wilson Leys, ind it contained no documents to mpport the libel. How, he asked, could Vlr. Kerry know that ? It went on to say ;hab Mr. Asher, the person from whom the nformation was said to be obtained, was in Sydney. There were no witnesses in New Caledonia. He, Mr. Kerry, was in posseslion of certain agreements and documents, which he would place at the disposal of the lefendanb to enable him to file a defence, Drovided the case came on for hearing at ;he first sitting •of the Court. This, Mr. hooper said, would be impossible, as they nay have to get evidence from Queensland, Sew Caledonia, and Sydney. They had lot the material then to file a defence. They could, of course, file a formal defence, and not file the real defence until within a day or two of the time of trial of the action, but that would be unfair to the plaintiff. He asked, therefore, that the time for filing a defence bo extended to the 16th of March, and he mentioned that he had cabled to a firm of ?olicitors in Sydney to find Mr. Asher, and ascertain what documents he had. _ Mr. Napier submitted that if any extension of time was granted, it should be for a few days only. The man Asher, who was said to possess those documents, was in Sydney, and could be communicated with by cable, and an answer received within six hours. Mr. Brett knew, when publishing this libel, that he was accepting a great responsibility, and he should be prepared to support it. His Honor said it was probable that Mr. Brett, although legally liable, never saw the article before it was published. Mr. Cooper :In fact he was out of town at the time. Mr. Napier said he was responsible for the acts of his agents, his editor and literary staff. Justification was the only defence that could be set up in answer to this action, and he asked whether Mr. Kerry should be put to great inconvenience and expense by the granting of the extension asked ? He came over here in December, and it was not right that the defendant should now come to the Court and ask for unlimited time in which to fish out a defence. The only question for the Court was, had the de- I fendant sufficient time in which to file a I defence. His Honor said plaintiff came > before the Court with a very bad grace. This libel was published on the Bth of December, and he came to Auckland in that month, but he took no action until the 13th of February ; thus only allowing seven days in which to file a defence. It appeared to be for the purpose of depriving thedefenant of the time of the vacation. Mr. Kerry's j affidavit was to some extent absurd. He said there were no documents. How could he know ? and then he fixed a condition to his offer to supply certain documents. It must be borne in mind that all these things occurred outside the colony, and he did not see how plaintiff could say there were no witnesses in New Caledonia. Mr. Cooper said it mighb be necessary to get a Commission to take evidence in New Caledonia. He could not say of whab nature that evidence would be. Mr. Napier asked that if any extension was granted, it should not -■be-for more than a week. His Honor said that would be useless, when it was necessary to procure evidence and documents from places outside the colony. Mr. Cooper said ho had cabled to Sydney to try to find Mr. Asher. His Honor said it had become a rule when a writ was served outside the colony to allow of the filing of a defence, and he should do so in this instance, and grant an extension of time to the 20th of March. Divorce.

Orlando In man Kempthorne (petitioner), Jessie Sarah Kempthorne (respondent), Rogers and James Hawices (corespondents). This was a husband's petition for divorce on tho ground of his wife's adultery, and Mr. Campbell now moved that some other mode of service upon the co respondents than personal service be substituted. Mr. McVeagh appeared in support of the motion. His Honor said the case was a peculiar one. One of the corespondents had lefb the colony, and was supposed to be in America, and the other, Rogers, they were unable to find. Mr. McVeagh said they had made inquiries, and were unable to find him. He did nob know J what mode of substitute service to adopt, except by advertisement. He could order that an abstract of tho citation be advertised in the Auckland newspapers, and in the Government Gazette, which was supposed to be a notice to the world. He thought, however, tho respondent was entitled to be heard, and he would allow the matter to stand over in order that notice of this motion may be served on her, the hearing to take place four days after ser-« vice of the notice.

R.M. COURT.— Thursday. [Before Mr. H. W. Northcroft, R.M.] Undefended Cases. —In the following undefended cases judgment was given for the plaintiffs with costs:—Seegner, Langguth and Co. v. James Haig, claim £14 10s Sd and costs £2 2s; G. Cozens v. C. W. Cotching, claim £16, and costa £1 103 ; Auckland District Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. R. England, claim £212 a, and costs 18s ; T. and S. Morrin and Co. v. Wm. Bradv, claim £17 6s (id, and costs £1 10& ; A. • Walsh and Co. v. G. Cosson, claim £7 18s Bd, and costs £2 12s ; Kauri Company v. 11. A. Pyke, claim £5 3a lid, and costs £1 16s ; VV. C. Dennes v. the Picturesque Atlas Company, claim £24, and costs £3 18s ; John Gittos Stewarb v. John Wilson, claim £2 0s 7d, costs 6s. Henry Smith v. Andrew M. Creagh.— Amount of claim, £1 lis. Judgment was given for the defendant, with costs, £1 Is. Maurice Ickekson v. John McCree.— This was a claim for £1 14s, amount of commission alleged by the plaintiff to bo due to him. The plaintiff said he took the defendant to Messrs. Ehrenfried, and obtained for him an order for some casks. He claimed commission at the rate of 7J per cent. The defendant's answer was that he had been asked by the plaintiff to make the casks for him, and he had refused. After some conversation plaintiff took him to Elirenfried's. The plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs.

POLICE COURT.— Thursday. [Before Mr. R. S. Bush, R.M.] Alleged Larceny. —E. Morgan was charged v > ith having stolen one pair of Bed- | ford cord trousers, valued at one pound, and one pair of tweed trousers, valued at 16s Bd, the property of Robert McLean Hutchison. Mr. Thomas Cotter appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Robert McLean Hutchison stated that the defendant came to his shop on the night of he 15th instant. He paid he wanted clothing, and that he bad £2 to spend. He was shown several articles, and finally selected a suit of clothes and an extra pair of trousers. The defendant said, "I will pay £2, and take the goods if you will allow the balance to stand over for a time.' The balance was 30s. Witness at once refused to do this, and told him that he was in such a position with the merchants that he dare not give credit of one shilling's worth. He asked witness to break the suit, and \pt him take the pair of Bedford cord trousers. The defendant said he would pay cash. Witness's wife did up the parcel, and the defendant put his hand in his pocket, as witness thought to extract the money. Instead of this, however, the defendant withdrew a packet of cigarettes and offered witness one, which he accepted. Witness asked his wife to get him a match, and while she was away the accused left the ! shop, taking the goods away. As he went | out of the door he Baid "Good night; I will

see you to-morrow." Witness could nob follow him, as he was in deshabille. His wife at that moment re-entered the shop, and at a glance grasped the situation. She ran out after the accused, and followed him to his house, bub he refused to give back the goods, and would nob pay for fchera.. Witness several times told him he could nob have the goods unless he paid for them. By Mr. Cotter: Witness had a shop at Newmarkeb for seven weeks. The defendant also had a shop there. Mr. Cotter : Did you buy or hire a horse from the defendant? Witness excitedly: "Now, your Worship, we must stop this at once. Thischarge has nothing to do with the horse. If this question is urged, I must apply for an adjournment, and bring numerous witnesses from all parts of the country as far as Hamilton —some to prove the value of the animal, others as to its capabilities, and its condition, etc. Mr. Cotter wisely abandoned the question. Mr. Cotter : "You say when your wife came into the shop, she took in the situation at a glance. Could she then see into your pockets if you had been paid." To His Worship : " I understand that it generally takes some time for a wife to do that." The witness asked permission of the Bench to explain. Mr. Bush: "You have been trying to explain all the morning." Witness, continuing, said he had offered to withdraw the present charge, if the defendant would pay for the goods. Mr. Cotter: What have you brought these proceedings for? Witness: I understood the police were to bring the proceedings! Mr. Cotter: Did not Constable Lamb refuse to lay an information against the defendant ? Witness : Yes ; I was told by Constable Lamb to see Inspector Hickson. Mr. Cotter : Did you not send a letter to defendant yesterday, which concluded thus, "If you return my property at once, or its equivalent in cash, and pay my solicitor for the consultation, I will withdraw the charge against you, otherwise I shall prosecute you with the utmost rigour of the law ?" Witness : Yes. Mr. Cotter : Do you know what compounding a felony means? Witness: I cannot say that I do. In answer to Mr. Bush, witness said his wife was not in Court, as she had nob been subpoenaed. Mr. Bush dismissed the case, saying that the whole affair appeared to arise out of a dispute between the two parties.

PUKEKOHE R.M. COURT. Thursday, February 15tii. [Before Mr. Thomas Jackson, R.M., and Messrs. Russell, W. T. and J. H. Wright, J.P. Civil Cases. —Adjourned from last Court day. T. H. Bradburn v. Joseph Roland, claim £25 5a 8d for work done. The pith of this case is as follows :—Mr. Roland is a blacksmith, lately come to this country from Samoa. He took over Mr. _ Blake's shop at Drury. Bradburn was a friend of Roland s at Samoa, and was also a blacksmith. Letters passed between the parties, the result being that Blackburn came to New Zealand, and joined Roland at Drury. For the first five or six weeks Bradburn was not able to do much, but after that worked pretty regularly so that for work done he claimed the sum mentioned. Mr. Roland, for whom Mr. Battley appeared, put in a set off of £23 17s. This sum consisted of cash paid Bradburn, board and lodging, etc. The Bench, after i hearing the evidence adduced by both sides, gave judgment as follows: — Verdict for Bradburn for the sum of £22 7s 3d, and for Roland for £14 15s 7d; each party to pay their own costs. There were one or two other cases or a trivial nature disposed of, the Court standing I adjourned till the third Thursday in March. [Own Correspondent.]