THE COURTS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 839, 30 March 1888, Page 23

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT,

CIVIL SITTINGS. Thursday, March 22. (Before Bis Honor Mr Justice Richmond and a jury of twelve.) NOPERA TIKI V. ALLEN.

Evidence' having been taken at some length in this case after avg Avent to press last Aveek, the jury returned a verdict, on issues submitted to them, that the defendant did honestly believe that plaintiff had been guilty of larceny as a bailee under the Chattels Securities Act. A verdict was therefore entered for defendant. A cross-action, Allen v Nopera Tiki, was not proceeded Avith, except that a decree Avas granted for a statement of accounts. DIVORCE COURT. Monday, March 29. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Richmond.) SLATER V. SLATER. On the application of Mr Hall a decree absolute was granted. FRY V. FRY. Mr Jellicoe for the petitioner, William Fry. The petitioner, a laborer living in the Wairarapa, deposed that he Avas married to Emily Goewood, at GreytoAvn, in July, 1886. They cohabited for a year, after which petitioner learned that a man named Francis Billton, who had been nursed at his house during an illness, was in the habit of visiting Mrs Fry. Witness spoke to his wife about this, and she replied that she would have Billton to visit her. On the 13th July last Mrs Fry took a fit, and at her request Billton was sent for. He came, and upon Mrs Fxy coming round again both she and Billton ordered the petitioner to “ clear out,” and said he was no man if he didn’t. He “cleared out,” and three days later took his clothes from the house (which was at Martinborough), _ Billton being there then. Before his Avife left Martinborough for Featherston, she stopped him on the road and told him that “ he was her husband, and it was no use him actino" ; Avhen she got tired of Billton she should come back to him.” By his Honor : Married his wife AA’hen she was about 27 years old. To the best of his knowledge he Avas her third husband. Knew nothing bad against her before he married her. . His Honor asked the witness Avhy he went out of the house Avhen told to do so, leaving Billton there. The witness replied because the house was his Avife’s property. _ His Honor : Do you think you were acting like a man to go out instead of turning the other fellow out neck and crop ? ~ The witness : Well, she told me to go out. , ~ His Honor : But if she had told you to knock your head against tne wall, Avould ycu have done it ? Witness : I don’t know. His Honor : Well, I don’t suppose you Avould. . ' , , At this juncture it Avas ascertained that several witnesses residing in the Wairarapa had not arrived in town, and as they were expected to arrive by the midday train, the case was ordered to stand over till 2, his Honor stating that if there was no further evidence then he should dispose of the case on Avhat Avas before him. : OLSEN V. OLSEN. A decree absolute was, on the motion of Mr Jellicoe, granted in this suit, sub--jject to affidavit of service being filed.

HENLEY V. HENLEY. Mr Fitz Gerald appeared for the petitioner, Emily Henley, Avho sued for a dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion and adultery. Mrs Henley deposed that she Avas married to her husband, T. P. Henley, by the Rev Mr Paterson, in June, 1879. They moved about from place to place, her husband never giving her any . money, until in July, 1880, he left her and went to Sydney. Ho afterward wrote to her and asked her to come to him, and she replied that she could not, unless he sent her money, which he did not do. She had one child. She received information from Sydney two, years ago Avliich led her to take the present steps. Michael Monaghan, * commission agent, of Wellington, deposed to serving the respondent with citation at Sydney in December last. Ho went to Henley s house, and saw a woman, Avho said she was Mrs Henley. Afterward, lie saw Henley at Botany sports, and served him. Henley said his Avife might get a divorce as soon as she liked ; he would not support her. He also told witness that he Avas married again, but did not fear prosecution for bigamy, because his wife Avould not give evidence against him. A decree nisi Avas granted, with costs against the respondent. No further business Avas transacted, the Court being adjourned at 2.30 till this morning.

IN BANCO. Wednesday, March 28. (Before His Honor the Chief Justice.) RE SKIPPER, A SOLICITOR, AND RE BRASSEY, A SOLICITOR. These matters Avere • mentioned and adjourned. BOROUGH COUNCIL OF HAAVKES BAY Y. DICKSON. The respondent obtained judgment for the value of a horse. A road having become foundrous, the Board’s servants began to repair it by laying down willow branches. These were eventually to be covered Avith earth, but OAving to the absence of some of the Avorkmen this Avas not done as the Avork proceeded. The horse tripped OA’er the Avillows and fell, receiving injuries of Avhich it died. The Resident; Magistrate on this found that the Board Avas guilty of negligence, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. The Board appealed. Mr Chapman appeared for the appellant. Mr Gully for the respondent, was not called on. His B onor the Chief Justice—l do not think you can make any more of it. It seems to be the l<w that the local body is liable ; Avhether it should be is not the question. The magistrate has found negligence, and there is no getting over that finding. I cannot say there is no evidence of negligence. There is some evidence, and I have not to say I should have found there ivas negligence. I cannot say it was Avrong of the magistrate to conclude there Avas no contributory negligence. Appeal dismissed, Avith L 7 7s costs. BDRROAV V. o’HALLORAN. Motion on notice for a judgment on admissions. The defendant had pleaded that he denied all the material allegations in the statement of claim. Mr Chapman, for the plaintiff: The denial under our rules amounts to an admission. Judgment for the plaintiff. KIMBELL V. MITCHELL. Motion for a decree on the Registrar’s report. Mr Quick for the defendant, Mr Edwards for the plaintiff'. Judgment Avas reserved.