SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19250, 14 August 1924, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. The civil sittings of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before his Honor Mr Justice Sim. DIVORCE CASES. The following petitions in divorce were dealth with:— WILSON v. WILSON. Margaret Irene Wilson petitioned for dissolution of her marriage to James Ernest Edward Wilson on the grounds of adultery. Mr Ji. S. Irwin appeared for the petitioner. Mr Irwin stated that, the couple were married on July 24, 1918, and afterwards lived at Whangarei, Auckland, and Invercargill. There were two children of the marriage. The allegation was that the respondent committed adultery with some woman, who was unknown to the potititioner. The respondent contracted venereal disease, and afterwards admitted that he had misconducted himself. After evidence had been given on behalf of the petitioner a decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months, tho petitioner to have custody of the children. Costs on the lowest scale wore awarded against the respondent, witnesses’ expenses to be fixed by the registrar. REEVES v. REEVES. Clara Ann Reeves sought a divorce from Charles Reeves on the grounds of desertion. The petitioner was represented by Mr H. E. Barrowclough (instructed by Mr Harlow, of Clyde). Mr Barrowclough said this was a petition for divorce on the ground of mutual separation for a period exceeding three years. The couple were married on March 23, 1907, and afterwards lived at various addresses in Dunedin. From the start the_ marriage was not a success. The husband became addicted to drink, and treated his wife very improperly. Finally matters reached the stage when they could not get on together, and the respondent announced to the petitioner that he was going away. He intimated that he was prepared to pay fl per week for the petitioner and her children. The respondent asked the petitioner to put out his belongings, which he would send for. Since then the parties had not lived together. In tho course of her evidence the petitioner stated that for the first few years of her married life her husband treated her very well, but after that he became addicted to drink, and ovennally tho position became so bad that she could not live with him. After corroborative evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months. The respondent was ordered to pay costs on the lowest scale, disbursements and witness’s expenses to be fixed by the registrar. The question of the custody of tho children would be decided later. BEST v. BEST. Elizabeth Paterson Best petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage to John Douglas Best on the grounds of three years’ separation. Mr Barrowclough appeared in support of the petition. Mr J. S. Sinclair said he had entered an appearance on behalf of the respondent, but he did not intend to take any part in the proceedings at that stage. He wished to be heard later on in regard to the custody of the children. Mr Barrowclough said the application was based on a deed of separation, which had been in existence for more than three years. The parlies did not manage to got on together, and finally they decided to separate. They had been Jiving apart for a little time prior to the execution of the deed of separation.

In the course of her evidence the petitioner said the marriage took place on November 16, 1909. There were two children.

A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute at the end of three months. An interim order was made giving the petitioner custody of the children. Coats on the lowest scale were awarded against the respondent, disburse-, meets and witness’s expenses to be fixed by the registrar. COLLINS v. COLLINS The suit brought by Robert Charles Collins against Queenie Anne Catherine Collins—a petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion—was mentioned. Mr Hay appeared for the petitoner and Mr Hanlon for the respondent. Mr Hanlon stated that a cablegram had been received stating that the respondent was not coming to New Zealand. Tn view of that there wa s nothing left to him but to withdraw from the proceedings. His Honor stated that he would hear the case on Friday morning. AN ORIGINATING SUMMONS. An originating summons, in which the parties were Alexander Wiseley the younger, and James Hume Paul (executors of the estate of the late James Wisely) and Catherine Wisely (a life tenant) came before the court. Authority was asked for the expenditure of portion of the capital of the estate in rebuilding portion of the dwelling house. Mr Rutherford appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr J. M. Paterson appeared as guardian ad litem for the infant defendant. Mr Rutherford said this was an application under section 91 of the Trustee Act to decide how much of the cost of repairs and improvements to a dwelling house should be paid out of the cor),us of the estate. Under the will Catherine Wisely, widow of the deceased, was entitled to carry on the business of farming, and upon her death or the discontinuance of operations the property might be leased, to the son. it might bo transferred to him on her death, or it might be sold. His Honor: It is not very easy to make out from the will what the intentions are. Th o will might have been made much simpler, Mr Rutherford: The idea, apparently, was to preserve the property. I-fis Honor; The widow gets the income from the estate during her life. If she gets married she cannot carry on farming any longer, but she still gets the income from the estate. Mr Rutherford said the trustees could carry on, or the son could get a lease, or in the third event the trustees could sell. His Honor: The only question asked hy the originating summons refers to the nayment of the cost of improvements. Why did you not ask for an order under section 91? ' Mr Rutherford said it was his intention to cover the point referred to in that section. Could his Honor make an order which seemed just in the circumstances ? His Honor said an order could be made authorising the expenditure of the money. It seemed necessary that the dwelling house should bo rebuilt. If the widow was entitled to the income from the estate there was no reason why the money should not be paid out of capital, Mr Paterson said that after perusing the affidavits and getting independent advice lie had come to the conclusion that the widow would bo sufficiently penalised by the amount of capital that would be withdrawn. His Honor: What about the total amount to be spent? There is a suggestion of extras. Mr Rutherford suggested that an order be made for the expenditure of the contract money and the extras mentioned in the affidavits. The amount of the contrast was £493, and the extras £35. An order was made authorising the trustees to expend not more than £540 in rebuilding part of the dwelling house as proposed, the money to come out of the capital of the estate. Mrs Wisely to pay the oasts of all parties, which will be fixed by the registrar. ASSIGNMENT OF A LEASE. Lucy MWeigh and Alexander Richards proceeded against Chas. Hull 'Cotton as the result of a dispute over the proposed assignment of the lease of the Georgetown Hotel. The position was that Mrs MWeigh desired to assign her lease of the hotel to Richards and applied to the landlord (Cotton) for his consent, which was refused. mainly for financial reasons. The question which the court was asked to decide was whether ihe refusal was arbitrary and unreasonable. Mr Callan and Mr W. L. Moore appeared for the plaintiffs mid Mr Hay for the defendant. Mr Callan said the application was made under section 179 of t.br Licensing Act, and thov hoped to satisfy the court that (ho refusal of the landlord to consent to the proposed assignment of the lease was unreasonable. From Mrs M‘Veigh’a affidavit it appeared that the defendant was the owner‘of an hotel property at Georgetown, which apparently had the advantage of being just on the border of a no-liconse district, In 1921 Cotton leased the hotel to the late M,r M Weigh for three voars, the goodwill paid being £ISOO and the rent £4BO per annum. Mr MWeigh secured the right, of renewal for another three years at the same rental on payment of a further sum of £ISOO for goodwill. Mr M Weigh died in 1922. but at the mid of the lease Mrs M’Veigh exercised the option, paying £ISOO and thus securing a

lease for three years from January, 1924. Mrs M’Veigh had entered into a contract to sell to Richards for the balance of the term. That contract was entered into in June, when the lease had still two and ahalf years to run. Under the contract Richards was to pay Mrs M'Veigh £2SCO for goodwill and was to take over the stock and furniture at a valuation not to exceed £ISOO. That meant that Richards would be liable to pay Mrs M’Yeigh £4OOO, of which at least £ISOO was to be in cash, the balance to be allowed on mortgage, reducible at the rate of £IOO per month and bearing interest at the rate of 7 per cent. This arrangement would enable Richards to wipe off his liabilities in 25 months. The defendant had refused to consent to that contract on the ground that the liabilities were too heavy to give Richards a reasonable chance of running the business successfully. Learned counsel argued at length that the position was such that consent to the assignment of the lease was not justified. Richards had been connected with hotels for a very lengthy period, and had satisfactorily conducted an hotel at Alexandra for some years. His wife was also an expert in the conduct of hotel business. Mr Moore referred to the issue of a magistrate’s certificate of fitness in regard to Richards, and contended that the magistrate would take into consideration _ the financial position of an applicant for a license. The fact tnat only one case had come before the court in many years showed that the practice was to accept a magistrate’s certificate ns a re-sonablo ground for not refusing to consent to the transfer of a lease Most of the magistrates were chairman of licensing committees, and it was their duty, when certificates were being granted, to ascertain that an applicant was not likely to commit a broach of the licensing laws. In this case it was purely a question of finance. His Honor said it was suggested that Richards had taken on such a financial burden that ho could not carry on with out committing beaches of the Licensing Act or starving tho business. Mr Moore said that if the business were starved it would bo more to the detriment of Richards than to that of Cotton. When Cotton fixed the goodwill in 1921 things were not at their best so far as hotel keeping was concerned. Since the last election goodwills bad jumped un all over the country. . Mr Hay said it would be very interesting to know how much Richards had made out of tho hotel at Alexandra. Ihe fact was that Richards had conducted an hotel at Alexandra for 3i years, but prior to that his experience in the hotel business was gained as barman, cook, etc. Ine hotel at Georgetown was in a peculiar position, inasmuch as that it required a man with free capital to carry on tho business properly. In 1915 business was at a low ebbl Cotton paid £3500 for the freeho d. The years 1918 and 1919 were exceptionally good years, hut it appeared that this was duo to Cotton having made a wue fleai in whiskv in 1917. The business had to be made iro by careful handling. IHe trade was somewhat of a wholesale nature. The hotel was on the boundary of a nolicense district., and people bought honor in large Quantities. It was not sold at a high profit as was the case in the cities. It, was absolutely necessary that a man going into the hotel should ,n , to ., ** under favourable eond’tions. , defendant was afraid of was that the business would go hack to where it was before he started to work it up. A poed dea of the business bar! he done on credit with the farmers, and the man in charge rem.ired to have plenty of finance. defendant contended that the m,, hv Richards was too high even if he had the cash to nav it all off. position was fhni’out of £4OOO Richards hod only about £7Pfi to r.nt into the hotel, leavmn- some ■OV’O9 to’ he fo-”’d elsewhere. Richard paying £I6BO more than Cotton bad to pay Cotton’s average profit ,mr .five ro P a >- piece and fbot was rind years was filtihu. anci i m. tn the hie profit on whiskv The tree hold had been offered for £7OOO so it was nrettv obvious that a two and a-half years Rase was not worth the price proposed to arid he would take time to consider the matter. MOTOR FATALITIES. TO THE EDITOR. o,i —The alarming number of street accidents’ in which motor vehicles have been concerned snggests either that cur hr a relating to motor permits are too lax or that wr require a better eveteni of inepection. Senior Sergeant Mathieeon is to be commended for drawing public attention to the alarming increase in motor accidents. Perhaps with his experience he could give onr sleenv City Councillors a few hints on the traffic by-laws The general public is not altogether blameless. The bylaws require motor vehicles to slow down at the cross streets, and something ehoiucl be done to make pedestrians cross at the cross streets only. I have repeatedly seen people, particularly women and children, commence to cross Princes street at the Government Life Office buddings and finish up in front of a shop near Dowling street. In all the large towns of America and in moat of the busy streets in- England, pedestrians are compelled to cross only at certain streets. —I am, etc., August 12. Evbltnb Behnet. RATING SYSTEMS. •to THE EDITOR S rß( “Suburb’ asks whether the totals £80,641 and £53,306 mentioned in a previous butter should not be in tho same pronoxtion as £l4 is to £5 3 S 2d. The answer is that they should not. In the former totals a large number of ratepayers are included who would pay under tho unimproved system •quite as much as, and in many instances more than, they do at present. In the smaller totals a specific case ia stated, ant tho issue is clear-cut.

In answer to the latter part of the letter from “Suburb” I contend that employee*! iii the suburbs would pay about £35,000 less under the unimproved system. The City Corporation would necessarily have to make up the deficiency from other portions o‘ greater Dunedin- —the old South, High, and Leith Wards. As, however, the large majority of ratepayers earning wages live in the suburbs, a ay-stem which will conserve their interests is preferable to one which unduly taxes them in the interests of a minority. Two of Mr Lownn’s instances indicate the effect of the change: Present Unimeystem. proved. No. 17, foundry premises, 1 acre 2 roods £lB6 0 0 £4OB 4 0 No. 24, foundry pre misee, 1 acre, 22 poles .. • • £162 15 0 £257 9 7

Train fares in the suburbs are compulsory and £33,000 would' go far in compensation to suburban residents. Let each wageearner who owns property in the suburbs determine what he is paying now, and what he would pay at 8i on the Government value of hie land only, and when he has found tliis let him make a note and vote accordingly. Comparisons with St. Hilda are quite beside the question. Each case can be decided on its merits. The figures are to be had, and rating on unimproved values will suit host the largo majority of ratepayers in Dunedin— l am, etc., Century. Dunedin, August 13.