SUPREME COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20952, 15 February 1930, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

QUARTERLY SESSIONS. The quarterly sessions of the Supreme Court were continued yesterday before his Honor Mr Justice Kennedy. DIVORCE. ERRIDGE v. ERRIDGE. The ease in which Helen Ramage Erridge proceeded against William Alexander Erridge on a petition for divorce on the grounds of three years’ Separation was concluded. At the previous hearing of the case the marriage certificate produced had been procured from the church where ' the marriage took place and not from the registrar, and his Honor adjourned the case so that a certificate could be procured from the usual source. Mr 0. J. L. White appeared for the petitioner and Mr B. S. Irwin for the respondent. The proper certificate was produced by the petitioner, who stated that she did not intend to claim alimony. His Honor granted a decree nisi to be made absolute after three months, the respondent to pay costs on the lower scale. PETERSON v. PETERSON. William James Peterson, of Arrowtown, . proceeded against Christina Robinson Peterson and another on a petition for divorce on the ground of adultery. Mr W. G. Hay appeared for the petitioner, Mr B. S. Irwin for the respondent, and Mr C. J. L. White for the corespondent. Counsel for both respondent and corespondent said that their clients admitted adultery.

Mr Hay said that he would prove the case in full in spite of the admission.

His Honor: You must do that. The petitioner stated that the marriage, which was a forced one, took place in October, 1925. He knew that the respondent bad one illegitimate child, but after the marriage lie found that she had two, and after living together for four or five days the parties separated. ' 1

Robert Norrish identified photographs of the respondent and co-respondent (a man named Kitto), who, he stated, had f lived together for a year as man and wife in a hous6 in Bedford street owned by witness’s wife. They had one child while they lived in the house. George Ernest Brown, said that the respondent and co-respondent had lived as man and wife in a house in Smith street owned by his mother. There were two children. Mr Hay stated that he did not propose to ask for custody. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be moved absolute after three months, the co-respondent to pay petitioner costs on the lower scale. A MATTER OF COSTS. At the last sessions of the court bis ‘Honor disallowed au appeal by the police against the decision of the magistrate (Mr H. W. Bundle, S.M.) in dismissing a charge against Philip Barling of selling liquor after hours. In giving judgment his Honor at first awarded costs against the policy, but Mr P. B. Adams, who appeared for the police, asked to be allowed to submit argument on the question to the court. His Honor agreed, and reserved his decision on the question of costs.

The argument was heard yesterday, Mr Adams again appearing for the police and Mr J. S. Sinclair for Barling. Mr Adams stated that the New Zealand courts seemed to have taken a different view of the matter from those in England. Counsel wished to refer to the practice which the courts had adopted in New Zealand. He submitted that there was a rule of practice by which costs were not allowed against the police. He admitted that in the cases which he quoted the police had been the respondents and not the appellants, as in this case, but he .thought that it was safe to say that if there were a valid distinction, mention of it would have appeared somewhere. He argued that there was no distinction.

His Honor: Is it not a little hard that a person rather than the State should have to bear the burden of clearing up the law?

Mr Adams also stated that the police had succeeded on the grounds mentioned in the magistrate’s judgment, and that the appeal had failed on a point to which reference had not been made either by the magistrate or counsel in the lower court. He submitted that the case was not one such as to warrant the granting of costs against the police. . Mr Sinclair argued that if costs were allowed against the respondent there would be an injustice. One could see that there would be opportunities for persecution if the Crown knew that it would be free from all possibility of hav ing to pay costs in cases of this kind. Counsel referred to an Appeal Court case in whiijh a Dunedin man had been respondent, and in which costs amounting to £lO 10s had been allowed agains f the Crown, and said that this could b° taken as a precedent. It disposed of the whole question. It would be a rank injustice to the respondent if he were not entitled to costs. If the police were not entitled to a conviction in the lower court the re spondent was entitled to costs on appeal. Mr Adams, in reply, referred especially to the Appeal Court case, stating that a Dunedin man had gone to Wellington with the assent of the Crown and at the order of the Supreme Court. He had gone to a great deal „£ expense. His Honor reserved his decision.