MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15482, 13 December 1913, Page 5

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

♦ MISHAP TO FISHING SMACK. 'OWNER CLAIMS DAMAGES. A claim for £21 7s expenses incurred through damages to a fishing smack was brought by Georgo Sandford (Mr. McGregor) against the New Zealand Portland Comont Company at the Magistrate's Court yesterday before Mr. C. C. Kettlo, S.M. . Mr. McGregor stated that the plaintiff was the owner of the fishing yacht Ida, and the defendant company owned the auxiliary schooner Endeavour. On Friday, October 17, the yacht came in from a fishing cruise, discharged the fish, and went to her usual anchorage, near the Nelson Wharf. The following day the auxiliary schooner Endeavour came in from Whangarei, and as she was in some way disabled, she was brought in by the Harbour Board's tug as far as Hobson Wharf. She was then taken in charge by a launch, and proceeded towards her destination at the Nelson Wharf. When in immediate proximity to the fishing yacht, the Endeavour went aground, and passed over the Ida's anchor chain. This was slackened, enabling the Ida to drift round to the port side of the Endeavour, and the positions of the two boats remained unchanged until about 8 p.m. As was usual, thero was nobody on board the fishing yacht, and the master of the Endeavour had left that vessel in charge of the leading hand and the cook. About eight o'clock, a strong westerly breeze sprang up, and the Endeavour floated off. She was secured to the breastwork by only one line from the port bow, and the strong wind causing tlio vessel to swing round, she bumped into the yacht, the. anchor chain of which was broken. The Ida was then set adrift, and she subsequently brought up against the breastwork, knocking two holes in her side and sinking. Mr. McGregor contended that the master of the Endeavour should have taken more care to secure the schooner to ensure safety in the event of her floating off. The expenses of raising the vossel, repairing her, and replacing damaced gear amounted to £21 7s, for which sum her owner was suing. After lengthy evidence on lines similar to Mr. McGregor's opening had been heard, the case was adjourned until 9 a.m. to-day.

WIFE SEEKS SEPARATION. An application for a separation order was made by Mary Elizabeth Perry (Mr. Brookfield) against her husband, Henry Berrv (Mr. Wvrnnn) on the grounds of "rsistent cruelty an! failure to maintain. Mrs. Perry also applied for the custody of the three children and maintenance. From the evidence it appeared that the. parties had previously come to a mutual agreement by which they had separated for a year, at the end of which timo Mrs. Berry could not see her way to return to her husband. The defendant made an application for restitution of conjugal rights, which was heard in camera before His Honor Mr. Justice Cooper, and dismissed, Mrs. Berry, in her evidence, said that her husband, who was a painter, had suffered from lead poisoning, and was at times not himself. She could not live with him, for though he was "not a bad man " she was afraid of him. Tho children were at present living with her mother, and were being excellently cared for, though the defendant had announced bis intention of sending them to a home, and getting a woman to look after them if he secured custody. Mr. F. V. Fmor.S.M., before whom the case was heard, held that tho action of Mr. Justice Cooper in refusing Berry's application for the restitution of his conjugal rights was sufficient proof that the complainant's request for a separation order was well grounded. His Worship granted the separation order, and gave the complainant custody of tho children, with the condition that the defendant should have access to them for one hour on Sundays. He further allowed the complainant 25s weekly for the maintenance of the children.