SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3414, 20 August 1919, Page 24

SUPREME COURT

ACTION FOR DAMAGES. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. . The civil action in which Catherine Weir scught to recover from the New Zealand Coal and Oil Company £2500 as damages Vising from the death of her husband, ,v ames Archibald "Weir, who was injured in carrying out his work in the Kaitangata mine, and who, it was died as a result of these injuries.was resumed before his Honor Mr Justice Sim and a jury of 12 on the 13th inst. Mr W. C. MacGregor, K.C., fend Mr A. O. Hanlon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr J. MacGregor and Mr W. G. Hay for the defendant company. ■ Further evidence was given on behalf of the defence. Mr J. MacGregor then addressed the jury. He said it was not sufficient to ;-rove neglect of duty. It must be proved that injury for which damages were claimed Was the result of that negligence. It was a question whether the injury had arisen from a neglect of duty. The only rule in such a case was where damages were asked for, to prove that negligence. It was not for defendant to disprove it. The burden of proof was on plaintiff to show that the negligence was the cause of the accident. The evidence for plaintiff was extremely slight. The Act of Parliament was extremely favourable to men employed in mines. If men found anything wrong in a mine they could come away. That Was for the general direction of everyone in the mine. Counsel said there was no evidence of negligence, because the two witnesses called for plaintiff knew nothing about the alleged cause of the injuries to this man. They had visited " the mine after the accident, and could tell from appearances that there had been a " brushing " down of the roof. They knew nothing of the accident. The evidence of what had occurred was the evidence given by witnesses for the defence. The object ©f calling the two witnesses for the plaintiff? was to influence the jury by bringing to_ its notfee that after "the accident something had be-n done to the low part of the poof of which no much had been heard. Things that happened after the accident were strictly no—evidence at all of negligence. In the ordinary way it was Jiot admissible. Counsel Went on to ouote authorities, and, continuing, said ■that it was a duty when a Eious accident happened to give mediate notice to the inspector of Sines. Carson had not given notice till the onday. It was not fill Saturday night Jhat ho had any reason to believe thai; the Case was serious, and ho was perfectly justified in doing what ho did. Even if the brushing" had bsen done in consequence C»f the accident it was no evidence of negligence. Nobody knew for certain how the accident happened, 4<nd nobody would have wown anything about it except from the Unfortunate man's own statement. Deceased had admitted to the constable that VJobody was to blame, and that the cause >f the trouble was purely and simply accidental. It was alleged that the man's death Ivas caused by his having been dragged out between the top of the box and the low \Wt of the roof. What had happened was \shat he came- in contact with the screen, in consequence- was pulled over into the Vox on his stomach. Counsel was not satissed whether he struck the roof or Vie jury found that he was dragged into

the box when he came in contact with the screen ; that would account for the whole thing. Counsel contended that Weir had been pulled into the box in consequence of coming into contact with the brattice. No jury was ever asked to find an employer guilty of negligence - on such evidence. Mr Hanlon said that the foundation of plaintiff's claim was the negligence of defendants. It had been said that it was unfair for the woman to bring- this action, because she would get compensation under the Workers Compensation Act. She sued for damages because she olaimed that the company had been guilty of negligence that. had caused her husband's death. The onus of proof with regard to negligence was on the company, which had to show that there was no negligence on its part. " Plaintiff did not want any damages unless the jury came to the conclusion that she wag entitled to them. Damages were wanted as a right, and if there was no right there was an end of it. Plaintiff said that defendant company had been guilty of a breach of statutory duty to keep - the drive safe, and had left the roof and sides dangerously low. Plaintiff said that following such a breach there was negligence on the part of the company in permitting Weir to ride on the haulage rope, .end that the roof and side* were in a dangerous condition. The result had been that while riding on the box Weir had been caught between the roof or the side of the drive and the box. What the jury had to decide was, had defendants satisfied it by evidence beyond reasonable doubt that there was no negligence on their part. If there were, that was an end of the case. But he (counsel) .said defendants had not shown that. On the other hand, they had been guilty of negligence, and it was that negligence that had caused the death of this man. The question for the jury to determine was how the injury had arisen. The theory put forward by the company was that Weir had been riding on the front edge of the top of the box, and had been caught by the brattice cloth end crushed; that he was swept off by tho brattico cloth and fatally injured. Was there a scrap of evidence to show anything of the kind? Where was the witness who could, or had, said that Weir was sitting on the top of the box? There was no justification for such a suggestion. What had happened was that Weir had become twisted round by the brattice cloth, and been crushed by the low roof and thrown into tie box where he was found. There was not a scrap of evidence to show that deceased had ridden on the top of the box in any other way than that adopted in the ordinary way by miners. Counsel went on to review the evidence, and in th G courso of so doing said deceased had been heard to call out sft up from the brattice cloth, and if that were true, there was cji end of the case so far as defendents were concerned. Defendants had taken away 16in of coal where th e accident had happened, and could that be called "brushing"? And that was done within 18 hours of the accident. And thy called it clearing up. or brushing. What they had done was to obliterate the evidences of their negligence. His Honor summed up at 5 p.m., the jury retired at 5.30 to consider its verdict, and returned to the court at _ 6 o'clock, having found as follows on issues submitted to it by his Honor: When Weir was injured, was he riding on the front top edge of the box, or on the rope in front of the box? —Answer: Weir was riding in front of the box with one foot on the buffer and one on the rope. If he was riding on the haulage rope, did he have a written permit from the mana-

gor to do so?—Answer: No written* but the company was aware of his so riding. Were the injuries to Weir caused by hia being crushed against the roof or side of the drive ?—Answer : Yes. If so, was the drive dangerously low at the ' place where Weir was crushed?— Answer: Yes. If so, was the condition of the drive at that place due in any' way to negligence on the part of the defendant?—Answer: Yes. ' What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover? If damages are awarded, how are they to be divided between the plaintiff and her child.—Answer : Damages £lsoo—Mrs Weir £1045, and the child £455. The foreman of the jury said there was a recommendation that the money be placed with the Public Trustee and that Mrs Weir receive £1 per week and the child 12s 6d per week. Mr W. C. MacGregor said he would do all he could to see this carried out. Mr J. MacGregor moved for judgment for defendant on the ground that tho juryhad found that Weir had been riding on the haulage rope and had had no written authority to do so. His Honor said Mr MacGregor could move within 14 days; costs to be fixed by the registrar CIVIL SITTINGS. Wednesday, August 13. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) POWLEY AND CO v. LANES. ■ The first case called was one in which R. Powley and Co. sought for an injunction to' prohibit Lanes (Ltd.) from an alleged infringement of trade mark. An injunction and damages were '■■■ asked for. Mr W. O. MacGregor, K.C., and Mr W. G. Hay appeared for plaintiff, and Mr P. Calvert for defendants. Mr MacGregor said h e was glad to be able to state that the- defendents had consented to judgment on certain terms which Mr Hay would explain. Mr Hay mentioned that plaintiffs bottled ale and stout and manufactured bottled lemonade, and added that defendants bottled cordials and lemonade. The plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of a trade mark known as "Moa." During the war there had been a considerable shortage of bottles, and traders had found it a difficult matter to get supplies, with the result that there had been to some extent an infringement of one another's rights in respect to bottles, and the plaintiffs had had cause to complain in this respect. Arising from investigations, plaintiffs had had reason to believe that defendants had been infringing _ their trade mark by selling lemonade in bottles bearing plaintiffs' trade mark. Attempts had been made to grind, more or less effectively, the trade mark from tho bottles, but in some cases it had been just interfered with and no more. All that was visible was that an attempt had been made at grinding. Defendants had admitted that they had infringed plaintiffs' rights in regard to the trade name and the trade mark, and that.they had in-, fringed by grinding, using, and sellinsr bottles bearing tho special inscription of plaintiffs. Defendants had consented to an injunction with regard to the trade mark and the trade name, and had also consented to an injunction restraining them from grinding, using, or selling_ the particular bottles bearing the special inscription, which they acknowledged to be the property

of plaintiffs. In addition, defendants had consented to judgment for £25 costs and disbursements. 'lhere was also an agreement in regard to the return of bottles, and it was hoped that the present action would act as a warning to others. Mr Calvert stated that he desired to make it quite clear that defendants in the action they had taken had not the slightest intention of using plaintiffs' trade mark or name. That was admitted. What had happened was not done in a fraudulent way in order to pass of defendants' goods as those of plaintiffs. Defendants had thought that they were justified in using beer and stout bottles for lemonade. Bottle gathers and others had brought bottles to them, and they had thought that they could do as they liked, so long as they did not use plaintiffs' trade mark. Where the mistake had been made was that defendants had thought that anything showing that an attempt had been made to deface the name of plaintiffs was sufficient; without making it so complete that the name could not be read. Defendants had agreed that plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction to prevent any possible use of plaintiffs' trade mark and name. In regard to special bottles,, defendants had undertaken not to interfere with them. No bottle had been sent out by defendants without having their label on it. Mr Hay admitted that defendants had not dishonestly made use of plaintiffs' trade mark and name. Judgment was entered up accordingly. CLAIM AGAINST EXECTJTOH3. Agnes Elizabeth King claimed £1729, arrears under a deed, and £482 Is 8d interest, from Frederick Smith and Vincent George Bryan King.—Mr C. G. White appeared for rlaintiff, an d Mr Alex. B. Adams for defendants. Mr Adams stated that after a conference, a settlement had been agreed upon. Defendants were the executors of the will of the late George Alfred King, husband of plaintiff, and the claim was made under a deed dated as far back as February, 1907. The first notification the executors had had of the deed was when the claim was made by plaintiff, and they had felt that, as the amount claimed was a large one, they ought to re protected by the court. The settlement was a very favourable one for the estate. Replying to his Honor, Mr Adams said the 'gross value of the estate was about £2OOO Mr White mentioned that, apart from any question of judgment, plaintiff intended to pay the legacies included in the settlement His Honor said the settlement was a good one, and he had no difficulty in approving of it. Judgment would be entered in terms of the draft, judgment. The terms of the settlement were that the executors pay to plaintiff the net residue of the i state, not exceeding £2211 Is Bd, after paying death duties, funeral and testamentary expenses, defendants' costs, and the debts of deceased to persons other than plaintiff, and specific legacies under the will; and that payment of the net residue be accepted in full satisfaction of all claims, present and future, to plaintiff under the will. IN BANCO. His Honor Mr Justice Sim sat in the Supreme Court on the 14th. The first business taken was an originating summons in connection with the estates of Arthur James Scaife and Stanley Tancred Scaife, deceased (Slcaife and Scaife and others). Mr J. A. Cook, who appeared for- plaintiff, said the originating summons had been taken out with a view to having plaintiff, who was the sole trustee under the wills of the deceased (his two brothers), discharged from his office of trustee and executor of the wills, bo as to allow him to become the purchaser of deceaseds' respective interests in the Glendhu Station, .which at the time of death had been held by the three brothers in joint ownership. The three men had been anxious to go to the war, and it had been agreed that the two younger ones should go and that plaintiff should remain in charge of the station. Unfortunately the two who went away were killed in action. It was proposed that plaintiff be discharged from the trusts of the wills, and that the court should appoint the father of the two infants and M-r Geo. Black (assistant manager of Dalgety and Co.) trustees of the wills in place of plaintiff; further that they should ne at liberty to sell the interests of deceased to plaintiff on the basis of valuation of the station at £23,000 or £24,000. Mr Finch, who appeared on the other side,'* stated that the testators in both cases desired that plaintiff should purchase, and in regard to the father, he was evidently the person who should represent the others. His Honor said there was no doubt as to the jurisdiction of the court to make the order, end the case certainly seemed to be one i'n which it was proper to make such an order. The order would be made accordingly. IN DIVORCE. WHITE V. WHITE. Hugh White petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with Elizabeth May White on the ground of desertion. Mr Irwin, who represented petitioner, stated that the parties were married on August 22,' 1907, at Rangataua, by the Registrar. They afterwards lived near Napier and at Hunt's road, Owaka. In 1911 a telegram was received by respondent from her people, who lived in Wanganui, asking her to go to them, as her sister was dangerously ill. Petitioner arranged for his wife to igo immediately, and gave notice to his employer and followed his wife a week later. When he got to Wanganui his wife's sister was apparently well. Petitioner's wife remained with her people, and petitioner stayed at a boarding house. He frequently met his wife, who had evidently made up her mind that she would rather remain at home. Respondent found employment in some tea rooms, against her husband's wishes. There was no open breach. June 22, 1911, was the last occasion on -vhich they met. Petitioner then spoke to his wife for a few minutes—some one. was waiting for her, and she had to hurry away. Petitioner had not seen his wife since. Her people had said that they did not know her whereabouts. Petitioner worked on at Wanganui for some months, and then went to Mosgiel and later back to the Catlins district. When the war broke out he enlisted with the Main Body, and was invalided home. He obtained employment with the Government on his return, and went farming about three months ago. Evidence having been given in support of the petition, his Honor remarked that he did not see where desertion came in.

Petitioner's evidence ought to be corroborated on the material point, and that wag as to what took place between the parties at Wanganui. The question was whether she deserted him or whether ho deserted her. , Mr Irwin said ho would let the case stand over and get witnesses from Wanganui. His Honor said Mr Irwin could get an affidavit from the sister or someone there. At the suggestion of his Honor, Mr Irwin then called James White, brother of petitioner, who gave evidence as to respondent refusing to accompany petitioner. His Honor said he thought the evidence of ' the brother as to the circumstances under which respondent had left petitioner - when they were living together in Mosgiel might bo taken as corroborative of what had taken place in Wanganui. It seemed evident from the brother that respondent left her husband.—A decree nisi was granted, to be mads absolute in three months. BATHGATE V. BATHGATE. William Alexander Bathgate petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with Ethel Florence Bathgate on the ground of desertion. . , Mr Irwin, representing the petitioner, said the parties were married on March 7, 1905, at Whangaratta (North Island), and afterwards lived at Dunedin, Mosgiel, and Saddle Hill. Respondent left on a visit ■ to her parents before the birth of the fourth child (there were four children of the marriage), and she left her husband on perfectly friendly terms. He took her to the boat, and saw her safely on board, and she went away. He had not seen her since. A month or two after she had left she wrote suggesting that petitioner should pay her maintenance if she remained a little longer away than had been expected. He became suspicious, and went up to the Auckland province. He went to Auckland, and wrote to his wife from there, asking her to come to him. She declined, and took proceedings against him for separation and maintenance. The separation waa refused, but a maintenance order was made against petitioner for her and the children. His wife had refused to return to him. Evidence having been given, a decree was granted, to be made absolute in three months. COLBERT V. COLBEBT AND II'DONALD. William Colbert petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with Janet Colbert on the ground of misconduct, James M'Donald • being joined as co-respondent. Mr Irwin, who appeared for petitioner, stated that the parties were married on July 20, 1911. They lived in Dunedin together until last year, when, owing to a disagreement, they parted. Petitioner had respondent a weekly sum for maintenance. Respondent had divorced her previous husband on the ground of desertion, and had married petitioner, who was a widower, and the co-respondent in the case was her first husband, so she had evidently changed her mind, and had gone back to live with her first husband. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, the corespondent to pay costs on the lowest scale. MACGBEGOB V. MACGREGOB. Alice Macgregor petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with Alexander Calder Macgregor on the ground of desertion. -Mr S. Solomon, K.C., who with Mr J. S. Sinclair, appeared . for petitioner, said that the parties were married on July 1, 1908, and very shortly after the marriage the husband began to illtreat his wife. She Jiad consulted counsel's firm as long ago as that, and the; firm had communicated with respondent on several occasions about his behaviour. The outcome was that petitioner had to go to her mother's house. Respondent abandoned her, and, after threatening respondent once or twice, his _ (Mr Solomon's) firm sued him in the Polioa Court in 1910 for maintenance, and Mr Hanlon, acting for respondent, compromised the matter. Respondent paid the allowance regularly until early in 1912, and then suddenly stopped paying. He came to pay in advance, and had not been heard of since. His wife could find no trace of him, and the mother had had to keep the child, .and the petitioner had had to work for her living. t> Evidence having been given in support of the case, a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months; an interim order being made that petitioner have the custody of the child. M'AtrHFFE V. M'ATJXtFFE. . Margaretta M'Auliffe- petitioned ■-. for a dissolution of her marriage with Archibald Harold M'Auliffe on the ground of desertion. Mr F. B. Adams appeared for petitioner, and said that the parties had been married at Otautau on May 24, 1910, at the residenoa of Mrs M'Auliffe's parents. The two lived together for a little oyer three months. Towards the end of August ' M'Auliffe left his wife to go to Invercargill, apparently on business, and rung his wife up by telephone. Since then Mrs M'Auliffe had never heard from him or spoken to him. The only reason that could be assigned for his action was that he. had got into financial difliculties. M'Auliffe had enlisted, but had returned, and was now in Feather6ton Hospital. There *was a letter written by him to a bailiff Which counsel proposed to put in* There was one child of the marriage, and, it and Mrs M'Auliffe had been kept by Mrs M'Auliffe's parents.'. After evidence had been given his Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months; respondent to pay costs on the lowest scale, and petitioner to have the custody of the child. KBATJSE V. KRAUSE. Beatrice Olivia Krause petitioned for a divorce from Reuben Krause on the ground of desertion, and was represented by Mr Hanlon. Petitioner stated that she was married in August, 1910, at the house of the Rev. Mr • Murray. South Dunedin. There were two children. After marriage she and her husband lived with her husband's mother, and afterwards they took up house in Dunedin for a little while, and then went to Hamilton and to Thames.-;' They lived together at Thames. They re? ~ ceived word to come away at once, as respondent's mother was very ill. That would be in November, 1912. Her husband did not go, but sent petitioner. He promised to go, but did not do so. -His mother died. Petitionee wrote and wired to him, but got no answer. She had not heard of him since. A warrant was issued for his arrest, but he could not be found. Further evidence having been given, a decree nisi was granted, to become absolute

after three months; the mother to have the custody of issue of the marriage. Respondent was ordered to pay costs on the lowest scale. LANGDON V. LANGDON. Margaret May Langdon petitioned for a dissolution of marriage with Garnet Henry Langdon on tfoa ground of misconduct. Mr Hanlon appeared for petitioner. Petitioner stated in evidence that she married Langdon in Decomber, 1911, and that there was one child of the marriage. They lived in Dunedin till 1913. They lived happily for about a year. Respondent then began to knock her about. He broke up the home, and petitioner went out as a lady help. They came together again but again separated. They had not lived together since January, 1916. Petitioner had heard something about misconduct on the part of respondent, and that had led to the present proceedings. Marguerite A. Clydesdale (maternity nurse) stated that respondent came to see her about the confinement of his wife. It was afterwards discovered that the woman was not Langdon's wife. He paid the maternity fees. Both the woman_ and Langdon had been convicted for making a false declaration. " Witness registered the birth in accordance with the information given her by Langdon and the woman". The date of birth was Ootober 26, 1917. . Constable Munro stated that Langdon had admitted to him that he was married. A deoree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months; costs against respondent on the lowest scale. HAWKINS V. HAWKINS. Ernest Hawkins petitioned for a dissolu r tion of marriage with Isabella Hawkins, on the ground of desertion. Mr Hanlon appeared for petitioner. Petitioner said he. was a herbalist and was married in .1902. Four children had been born of the marriage. He and his wife lived together for 5i years. There were quarrels in con sequence of his wife coming home late at night. One day he found his wife shifting the furniture out Of the house. She took some of it away, and went to live with her mother in Lambeth road, Dunedin. When asked for an explanation respondent said she was "full up" of him (petitioner). A week later petitioner asked respondent to come back, and she refused. He asked her again, and she still .refused. Finally wit ness sold his furniture, and went to live with his own people. He kept the child ren. Petitioner had seen his wife since, and she would not come back to him. Further evidence was given by Annie M'Donald, who said that had stated that she would not live witn her husband, and that she had left him. She said he was cruel to her. Stanley Benjamin Butler gave evidence to the effect thta he had served the citation papers upon respondent in July, and she had said that she did not intend to defend the petition. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. IN BANCO. His Honor Mr Justice Sim sat at the Supreme Court on Friday morning, when an application was made for a refund of moneys and for the transfer back of shares. It was an application by the Publio Trustee, the defendant being- George Thomas Pulley. The money it was asked should be refunded had been given to defendant by his mother. The position was similar with regard to.the Mr F. B. Adams, who appeared for the Publio Trustee, stated that his Honor had in March last made the Public Trustee manager of the estate and gave him .authority to investigate certain transactions between Mrs Pulley and her son. Following upon that these proceedings-had been taken. _ Defendant, who did not appear, had admitted the receipt of £5070 in cash, and had had transferred to him four lots of shares. His Honor intimated that he was prepared to make an order that defendant pay the £5070, with interest at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum, and transfer the shares; accounts to be taken by the Registrar of all dividends received by defendant in connection with the shares; defendant to pay costs on the highest scale. IN .DIVORCE. John Chas. Walters petitioned for a divorce of his marriage with Elizabeth Jane Walters, John M'Callum being joined as corespondent. The petition was based on the ground of misconduct. Mr Statham, who appeared for petitioner said that petitioner and respondent had been married on March 16, 1903, by the Registrar, and had resided in Dunedin ever since. Eight children were born of the marriage, and seven-survived. Respondent went out as a maternity nurse, and in June of this year petitioner discovered that respondent had been guilty of misconduct with corespondent. That was admitted by .corespondent. The wife had filed no answer, but evidence would be brought to show that co-respondent had committed the offence. The claim for damages was bemg waived by petitioner, but as to the question of costs, if co-respondent did not know at the time the misconduct took place that respondent was a married woman, he was not entitled to be asked for costsHis Honor: Do you suggest that co-re-spondent did know she was a married woman? Mr Statham: Yes, your Honor. The petitioner is emphatic about that because he says they were next door neighbours some years ago. Evidence was Riven by petitioner, who stated that when he spoke to co-respondent he told him that his (petitioner's) wife had put an advertise.nent In a newspaper to the efYertfc that a young woman wished to correspond vith a middle-aged man. Respondent had admitted inserting the advertisement. Co-responde-stt M'Callum, being sworn, stated that he made the acquaintance of respondent in consequence of an advertisement, and made en appointment. He had never seen respondent beforo, and she gave him to understand'that she was a single woman and a maternity nursr>. He was a widower with six young children, and he had thought that respondent would be a suitable companion for him, and had asked her to marry him. She had said "No She could not be bothered getting married." It was quite true that he had been a neighbour of Walters some years ago, but he had not known Walters'? wife.until he had met her afterwards. The only occasion on which Walters had seen them together was when ihey had been coming along the street arm in arm. They did not know who Walters was until he came up. He (co-respondent) got such a shock when he was asked by petitioner what game he was at walking

about with his wife that he could only say "What, your wife?" Immediately he discovered he had been committing suc h a wrong he went to see Walters on die Sunday. He was considerably shocked. When the citation papers were served upon him he had gone to Mr Statham's onico and had handed him two letters in proof ot what he had stated. This lady had led him to believe that she was a single woman. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months; petitioner to have the custody of the children. With regard to co-respondent, his Honor aa:d he (co-respondent) had sworn that when he made the acquaintance of respondent he did not know that she was a married woman and did not know that she was the wile of petitioner. There was nothing to discredit his evidence, and he (his Honor) accepted his statement that he did not know when he became acquainted with Mrs Walters that she was married. No order could be made as to costs. AUCKLAND, August 14. At the Supreme Court John Robert Price, aged 54, found guilty of an indecent assault on a girl, was sentenced to three years hard labour. . August 15. Four oharges of obtaining money by means of valueless cheques were preferred against John Brown, formerly a sub-lieu-tenant in the Royal Naval Reserve, in the Supreme Court to-day. The accused was convicted, sentence being deferred. When the Supreme Court resumed this afternoon the first prisoner called appeared in .uniform. Mr Justice Chapman at once said: "I won't allow a man to stand in court in uniform. Take him away, and call another case. I have over and over again stated that I will not permit a man to appear in the dock in uniform. the prisoner was then removed, and the court waited until he had changed into civilian COt GS ' NEW PLYMOUTH, August 18. The criminal sessions of the Supreme Court were opened to-day before Mr Justice Hosking. The Grand jury returned true bills in the cases of John Adams (attempted rape) Percy Lewis Ward (theft), and Frederick Thomas Ellis (false pretences , but a charge against Margaret Elizabeth Close (manslaughter of her infant child) was thrown out. The court was occupied for the remainder of the day in hearing evidence for the Crown in the cose against John Adams. Percy Lewis Ward pleaded guilty to charges of theft, and was remanded till to-morrow morning for sentence, morning WELL i N GTON, August 12. At the Supreme Court to-day Thomas Edward Ryan, a waterside worker and his wife Ellen Ryan, charged with theft, and alternately with receiving stolen property, were acquitted. BREACH OF PROMISE. WELLINGTON, August 15. In the Supreme Court, Minnie Spiro claimed £5Ol as damages from Philip Schneideman for breach of promise to marry. The jury found for the plaintiff, awarding £350 damages.