The Courts.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 978, 28 November 1890, Page 26

The Courts.

SUPREME COURT. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court begin on Monday next. His Honor the Chief Justice last week heard iu Banco a motion to make absolute a rule to strike a certain solicitor off the rolls or suspend him from practice. Mr Barnicoat, of Wanganui, appeared to show cause for the solicitor, and Mr M. W. Richmond for the Law Society in support of the rule. The case occupied the whole day. His Honor decided that he was not satisfied that anything had occurred which called for the severe punishment of suspending from practice, but that the case had been a proper one for inquiry, and he should take the course which the Court had taken on some other occasions of discharging the rule on payment of costs; and he ordered accordingly that the rule ehould be discharged cn payment of £ls 15s costa to the Law Sooiety. The Civil Sittings of the Supreme Court were began on Monday, before bis Honor the Chief Justice. The cases Sir Walter Buller v. Fallon and others, Vaile v. Tancred, and Mrs Catherine Kane v. James Wallace were adjourned till the next sitting. Mr Gully stated that the action Endeavour Inlet Antimony Company v. New Zealand Antimony Company had been settled, but as the plaintiffs were not represented the case was not struck off the list. The Court adjourned till Friday, when the case Grant v. Macdonald will be heard before a special jury of 12. The date of trial of the HutchisonWhitakor libel aotion was on Tuesday definitely fixed for the 3rd of February. The application to fix time and mode of trial had been before the Chief Justice for some time, and on Tuesday an affidavit was filed ty Mr Gully (for the plaintiff) setting forth that the defendant had, in September, offered to go to trial in Wanganui at the sitting beginning on the 23rd of that month, and to go so trial in November if a clear month intervened between the trial and the elections ; also that, in spite of the plaintiff’s persistent endeavours to bring the case to trial, the defendant had stated, and continued to 6tate publicly, that the plaintiff was delaying the trial, which statement Mr Gully said was without foundation. He urged that the case should go to trial without delay. Mr Hall (for the defendant) aßked that it should not be tried before February, and filed an affidavit by the defendant that owing to the elections he could not conveniently go to trial in December. His Honour the Chief Justice made an order for trial on the 3rd of February, instead of the 9th of December, the order stating that it was made on the application of the defendant, and without prejudice to any application he might make as to place of trial, or Mr Gully’s application to have the case tried before a Judge alone—the latter application being refused by his Honor for the present.

(PER PRESS ASSOCIATION.) Christchurch, November 24. The Supreme Court opened this morning. Mr Justice DennistoD, in his address to the Grand Jury said that though the charges on the calendar were not numerous, almost all were of a serious character. He then referred at some length to the various cases. The Grand Jury returned true bills in all cases except Lily Ella Patten for conceal, ment of birth, and Alex. Cowan, manslaughter. John Williams and Albert Payne, charged with robbing a drunken man, were acquitted. William Manders and Henry Ernest Perry were convicted of breaking into and stealing from lake’s boot faotory. Sentence was deferred. Timothy Kelieher, found guilty of indecent assanlt, and sentence deferred. William Denniston was found guilty of common assanlt and was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour. There are no more cases to be disposed of.

Christchurch, November 25. In the Supremo- Court to-day, Manders and Perry, convicted of burglary, were sentenced to five years’ each. Timothy Kelleher, for indecent assault, received twelve months. Jtmeß Adams, captain of the ship America, was charged with shooting Karl Joahanson with intent. The captain was threatened by the cook, a man named Stookall, who bad a knife in his hand. The captain fired a pistol at the cook and the ballet missed him and struck Joahanson. He was acquitted. Mary Doyle, found guilty of robbery from the person, was sentenced to three months’ hard labour. W. J Lee and Michael Dooley, found guilty of robbery with violence, were sentenced to two yeare’ hard labour. The sessions aro now closed.

Blenheim, November 26. His Honor Mr Justice Edwards presided at the Supreme Court sessions whiob com' menced to-day. True bills were found against G. G. Hood (iheepstealing), John McNeil (robbery from the person), A. J. Godfrey (rape), J. Aldridge (forgery.) The first named was acquitted without being called on to produce a defenoe. Mr A. G. Fell, foreman of the Grand Jury, presented his Honour with the following resolution, adopted by a majority of three of the Grand Jurymen, and his Honour agreed to transmit the same to Government; “That the intervention of a Grand Jury between the enquiry in the Lower Court is unnecessary In that it fails to assist and sometimes defeats the ends of justice, (a) The Grand Jury is at the mercy of witnesses who generally fail to bring forward important facts, and make statements without any check or cross-examination; (b) that the Grand Jury’s duties can be better performed by the Public Prosecutor or the AttorneyGeneral ; (c) that the Grand Jury Bystem is very expensive ; (d) that other large colonies have abandoned the system with advantage. Dunedin, November 20.

The Supreme Court this morning was occupied with the case of Atkinson v. Atkinson, tho wife’s petition for a judicial separation on the grounds of adultery and cruelty. The- parties belong to the Hanmer Plains. Adultery is alleged with a governess. Messrs Harper and Chapman appear for the petitioner, and Mr Jelliooe for the respondent, who, it is alleged, is not in the Colony. The case is not concluded, only Mrs Atkinson’s evidence was taken.

Dunedin, November 24,

The oase of Atkinson v. Atkinson, a petition for judicial separation, was not coneluded in the Supreme Court to day. Mr Jeliicoe opened the case for the respondent at some length;V; He.,contended that the petitioner had failed '?to make out her case. E. R. Deacon, Solicitor, was examined at length. There was a slight breeze between Mr Jeliicoe and Mr' Mr Jellicoe’s insinuation was that’Mr Harper had been trusted with the confidence of Atkinson when he had been acting for him, and had somewhat abused his confidence by accept, ing a brief from the other side. This Mr Harper denied, aud Mr Justice Williams eventually interfered, pointing out that the present case was entirely different. Dunedin, November 26.

The case of Atkinson v. Atkinson, a wife’s petition for judicial separation, was concluded about 11 to-night. The jury replied to the issues as follows:—1. Did William Atkinson commit adultery with C. M. Mullaney prior to February, 1889 ? Yes, 2. Did he subsequently ? Yes. 3. Has he been guilty or cruelty ? No. 4. Was adultery condoned? No. 5. Did the petitioner connive? No. The verdict on the second issue was only three-fourths of the jury. Mr Justice Williams certified to a special jury, the question of costs to stand over. The hearing of the motions and to make the decree absolute was fixed for 17th December.. The verdict is practically In favour of Mrs Atkinson,

Nelson, November 20.

An interesting case is being heard in the Supreme Court by Mr Justice Edwards without a jury. Laßt year an extensive oontract in connection with the Westport harbour works was let to Wilkie and Wilson, at Cape Foulwind, who employed outside labour to the detriment of local men. On the completion of the contract Government took over the works. Deputations were sent by the local bodies to Wellington, and the Premier consented to let the work in small contracts, the Westport and Cape Foulwind Unions combined, and tendered with the understanding that the men originally working at the quarries should have the first claim. From the Westport Union 27 were eligible, and from Gape Foulwind 120, and as only 120 could be taken od, a ballot was taken. It was agreed that all wages over 10s per day should be set apart for a contingency fund, which at the completion of the contract amounted to £1136. The Westport Unions then claimed to be entitled to share the surplus, on the ground that the contraot was taken by the Unions. There are several witnesses to examine. Nelson, November 22. At the Supreme Court in the Union oase from Westport, Mr Justice Edwards gave judgment for the plaintiffs, who represented the men actually engaged in the work of the Cape Foulwind contract. The defendants alleged that the profits (£1133) belonged to the Unions and not to tho workers, the contracts having been taken by the representatives of the Union with the view of keeping up the standard wages—viz., 10s per day—which was paid to the men. His Honor said he was greatly struck by the highly creditable manner in which these contracts had been carried on from the beginning to the end. Combinations of workmen for a lawful purpose such as this were of a laudable character, and it was satisfactory to find they could be successfully carried out. It was most unfortunate that owing to .a not surprising misunderstanding of the position, the present dispute should have arisen. The question of costa was not decided.