SUPREME COURT

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIX, Issue 11194, 27 April 1922, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

CIVIL AND DIVORGE JUDGMENT GIVEN AT YESTERDAY’S SITTING. AN UNUSUAL CASE. Originally heard before Mr Justice Hoskins, the appeal case was - called of William Quinn and (by order) the Champion Company, Ltd., v. Annie Deckston. This action, removed from the Magistrate’s Court, came up for judgment yesterday. The claim, as amended, was for £125 as the balance of the purchase money due from defendant on certain plant and machinery, for the return of oertain revolving whisks loaned to her, for £lO damages in lieu of their return, and for £55 for interest, damages and: repairing charges on an electric motor loaned to her. Defendant’s answer was that the machinery purchased was not in good repair, as it should have been, and that plaintiffs had not put it in repair. Judgment was given to plaintiffs for £125, with interest from January 25th, 1920. and for £ls as damages for the motor. As to the whisks, .the court would require some further evidence before giving a decision. CUSTODY OF A CHILD. In this application, by the father of Ayesha Salainan, an infant (aged 5), for a writ of Habeas Corpus, directed to the mother in whose custody the child was, the court held that the real contest was whether it would be for the welfare of the child to remove her from her mother’s custody. The child’s father, an Indian from the Punjab, had l married the child’s mother when the latter was only some months over 15 years of age. In the original evidence the husjband was charged by his wife with ill-treat-ment and neglect, the husband on the other hand charging her with immodest conduct with a soldier. In any case, the couple had not agreed happily. Subsequent to the child’s birth, a deed! of separation was signed

in September, 1917, and the parties had lived apart since, the wife being supposed to receive 27s 6d a week maintenance. On five occasions since it had been necessary to bring proceedings against Salaman for arrears of maintenance, one such case resulting in an order, for his imprisonment ifihefailed to. pay. He had paid. J In March, 1919, Mrs Salaman became housekeeper to Mr Z, a Chinaman and widower residing in Wellington, and, some weeks afterwards, gave birth to a child, illigitimate, by a man named Chandler. This latter child she had been relieved of by adoption. •Subsequently, the husband began proceedings for a divorce. A decree nisi in Salaman’s- favour- was granted- in October, 1 1921, but the decree wes silent as regarding the custody of the child of the marriage. In viewing the evidence, the court noted that Mrs Salaman was still working at Mr Z’s, where she appeared to have a good home, and where the child wqs being well cared for. The court decided, however, to give the custody of the child to the father, chiefly because of the mother’s misconduct, which ended in the divorce, and because it appeared better for the child’s welfare in the future. The court,, therefore, made an order for the writ as moved. Mr Leicester by Messrs Bell, Gully, Myers and O’Leary) appeared for the husband and Mr E. C. Jelliooe for the wife. Service of ' the writ was deferred until Friday of next week, to allow Mrs Salaman an opportunity to appeal. DISPUTE AS TO PROPERTY. In this case. Peter Nicholas Branigan v. Joseph Saba, Mr D. M. Findlay was for the plaintiff and Mr T. M. Wilford for the defendant. Reviewing the evidence, it was stated that the case, removed from the Magistrate’s Court, was to recover £133 5s 4d, portion of the purchase price (with interest) of certain property. For the defence 1 , it had been alleged that portion of the money (£SO) was to have been allowed to defendant; that false representations 'had been made as to the length of the frontage of the property; that plaintiff had failed to erect a certain building on the property for a specified, price; and that defendant had repudiated the contract, but that plaintiff had refused to accept repudiation. As a matter of fact, the evidence showed that defendant was a Syrian, a person of enemy origin, but naturalised here in 1904. The court dismissed both claim and counter-claim, the costs for the plaintiff being allowed to the extent of £lO 10s, with fees of Supreme Court and of Magistrate’s Court. No costs were allowed to defendant.