AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 13766, 3 June 1908, Page 8

AUCKLAND SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. The civil'sittings of the .Auckland Supreme Court were resumed yesterday morning, before His Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. SELLING A LEASE. The hearing of the notion, Dorothy Emmie Morgan v. Eva MeConifell, claim £250 for alleged false representations i" connection with the &ale of a confectionery in Queen-street, was continue-*!. Mr. Button appeared fn plaintiff, and Dr. Bamford (instructed bv Mr. Baitky) for defendant. The first witness called was Harry Harold Partridge, who .said he was present when the parties conferred with Mr. Hall. He had distinctly state! then that there wm no lease in existence, and both ladies had understood that. He believed that Mr*. McDonnell made (some remark at the time that she thought there was a- lease. F.v Mr Burton : Mrs. Morgan appeared to'ho somewhat dissatisfied at that .time. H appeared to witness thai Mrs. McDonnell •though* she had sold a lease, Mid Mrs, Morgan that she had purchased one. Aire. MeConnell was a weekly tenant. His Honor: That is a matter of law Tims. McConnell, husband of defendant. also gave evidence. ~,, In summing up. His Honor =a»i planum could not expect to recover damages in respect of the lease. ' The evidence o, two entirely disinterested witnesses snowed that plaintiff was well aware that there was no proper lease. It was merely a Question of the value of the fitting, and whether defendant represented (not trauclulontlv).certain shelving, gas liftings, etc.. us her own to sell. If she did, what was the value of these articles to a tenant. The jury found a verdict, for plaintvfl tor £10. Judgment was entered accordingly, with costs oil the Magistrates Court scale.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL.

A NORTH AUCKLAND CASK.

Benjamin Sicrer sought a dissolution of marriage with Alice Siover, on the ground of her misconduct with Ihos. (.on ton, who was joined as co-respondent. I here whs no appearance of cither respondent or corespondent. . '. , Air Clayton appeared for petitioner, who stated in his evidence that he had married on Mav 13. 1903,' at Kaeo, where the parties lived together for some little tune. The onlv issue of the marriage was a stillhorn child. His wife's misconduct with Goulton dated from shortly afterwards, and finally he had left her altogether. He woe still paying for her maintenance. ■Evidence was given of impropriety between respondent and co-respondent, and a decree nisi was granted, with costs against co-respondent on the lowest scale. SEP ABATED IN SIX WEEKS. Win. Alfred Craig sought a dissolution of his marriage with Florence Eugene Craig, on the grounds of desertion. -Mi". Walker appeared for the petitioner, a saddler, residing at Auckland, who said he was married in January, 1894. His wife lived with him for six weeks, when she became ill It was arranged that, she, should go back with her mother to Christ-church for a. change. When there she did not reply to hie letter.?, and when he went for her to Christ-church she was nowhere to he found, and her people would give him no satisfaction whatever. Eventually, however. In 1 saw respondent, who admitted she had a good home and every comfort, but the said she would not return to him or give him any reason whatever for her conduct. Ho wrote, giving her a week to return to him, but received no reply to this or a. subsequent letter. Six months later his wife sued him for maintenance, but the case was dismissed. A decree nisi was granted. BLIND MAN'S DIVORCE John ThorJev -sought a dissolution of his marriage with "Lilian Emily Frew Thorley, on the ground of misconduct, George Brothers being named as co-respondent. There was no appearance of respondent or co-respondent.. Petitioner, who is blind, and for wnom, Mr. Mahonv appeared, said he was married at Auckland on June 3, 1890. There were no children. After a time he left Auckland for Kew, West Australia, and shortly afterwards his wife joined him. In 1896 he lost his sight, and the. following year he returned to Auckland. Shortly ;*fU>r his return he went into the Blind Institute. and two years later his wife ceased to visit him. Since then' he had heard at different times of respondent living _ with Brothers as his wife. He thought it was the fact that he was blind, and had not sufficient- money, that had caused his wife to abandon him. A dec-re*.-, nisi was granted ; costs on the lowest scale against co-respondent.

A LARGE FAMILY. Joseph Albert Masse? made application for the dissolution of his marriage with Charlotte Louisa Massey on the grounds of misconduct, Win. James Skinner being mentioned as co-respondent. Mi*. Moody appeared for the petitioner, a labourer, jiving at Onehnnga. win said lie was married on April 13, 1387. There were .10 children of the marriage. About 10 years ago he had come to live in Auckland with hi* wife. Skin net came to live not far away, and they became friendly. As a result 'respondent and co-respondent misconducted themselves, and on petitioner telling Skinner, never to come near the house, hi;-; wife went to live with co-respon-dent in Willow-street, having removed eon:e at the furniture for the purpose. A decree nisi was granted, with costs on the lowest scale against co-respondent. . AN UNHAPPY MAJtKIAOK. Mary Kneebone, represented by Mr. Keed," petitsonod for a dissolution of her marriage with' Joseph Richard Kneebone, on the grounds of desertion. Petitioner said she was married at the Thames- on October 3, 1885. and there were seven children. Her married life wuh un-happy.--owing to her husband giving way to drink, as a result of which he> had never properly supported her. In December, 1905, respondent left for a trip to Auckland, and-subsequently she learned lie had gone to Australia, leaving the. children, on her hands. Two years afterwards her youngest daughter received £5 frou* him from. Coolgardie, and this was the only money or communication received from him since he went away. She had found out that ho had recently returned to New Zealand, but he had not been to -se her. A decree, nisi was granted : costs against respondent. His Honor remarked that gaol was the best place for a man who treated iris wife in such a. manner. RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS. Beatrice Helena Stevenson applied for a decree for the restitution of conjugal rights against her husband, Ernest Voting Stevenson, who did not appear. Petitioner, for whom Mi. Brookfielti appeared, said she had been married in April, 1905, and respondent left her last October without giving any reason. About four months after the- marriage respondent began to drink heavily, with the result that he had to sell hi- farm, and came to live in Auckland. One night, when she was ill. she overheard her husband and the lady help talking about herself in a very objectionable mariner. She objected strenuously to this, and the upshot was that she left the house at midnight. She experienced considerable difficulty ii> obtaining custody of her child. The decree Mas granted, with costs on the lowest scale against the husband.

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN. On the application of Mr. Prendergaftt, decrees absolute for the custody (if the children were granted in tin* following fH.«c>:-—Koh Flora Heph/ibiih Horsfal! v. James Horsfal]; Ellen Eiuma, Anketell v. Chariot Edward Anketell: Sarah Jane Baugham Cross v. Richard Charles Cross.