SUPREME COURT

Otago Witness, Issue 3495, 1 March 1921, Page 36

SUPREME COURT

Tuesday, February 22. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) Alfred King v. John M'Combie.—Action for specilio performance of contract for the sale and purchase of a house, or damages. Mr E. J. Smith, for plaintiff, savi that the matter had been settled by the payment of damages, and asked that the ease be struck out Struck out accordingly. IN DIVORCE. SHAW V. SHAW. YV illiam Shaw v. Elizabeth Ann Shaw. — Petition for divorce on the ground of desertion. I here was no appearance of respondent, Mr A. C. Hanlon, for petitioner, stated that the parties had been married for 16 years. There were three children of the marriage. llie couple lived together in Dunedin till 1910, when petitioner took employment in Invercargill. His wife refused to go with him, and in 1911 wrote to petitioner to the effect that he had better come back and get the children. Petitioner came to Dunedin, and found that his wife had sold up the furniture and gone away, leaving the children in the empty house. He had seen her only once since, and she had refused to speak to him. No claim had been made by respondent on petitioner for maintenance. Evidence was given by petitioner and his mother (Margaret Sliaw). His Honor granted a decree nisi, with leave to make it absolute within three months. LAWEIE v. LAWRIE. Elias Henry Ramsay Lawrie v. Ethel Blanche Lawrie. —Petition for divorce on tile ground of misconduct. Mr Hanlon, for petitioner, stated that a co-respondent had been joined in the case and a claim made for damages, but the corespondent had cleared out, and the claim had been abandoned. Petitioner said he was married to respondent in September, 1903, and there were two children. The parties lived happily together till petitioner went to the war in 1916. After he returned he suspected something wrong, and found that his wife was going out and meeting the man named as co-respondent. Words ensued, and his wife left him. Subsequently he found correspondence which indicated that respondent had been carrying on in a loose manner with more than one man. Evidence was given by Frank W. O'Connell (private detective) and Anna M’Dowell (lodging-house keeper) that respondent and the man (Millis) named as co-respondent had lived together as man and wife. A decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute within three months, corespondent to pay costs on the lowest scale. M'INNES v. M'INNES. Flora MTnnes v. John Dunne MTnnes. —- Petition for divorce on the ground of misconduct. Mr Wilkinson, for petitioner, said that the parties were married in Scotland and resided in Dunedin for about 10 years. The wife went on a trip to the Old Country for an interval of time. Respondent was employed at the Phoenix factory, and there evidently made the acquaintance of a married woman named Campbell. Later ho left petitioner and lived with the woman. In 1919 petitioner got a maintenance, separation, and guardianship order for one child of the marriage. On the occasion of tho proceedings in the lower court petitioner entreated her husband to return to her and he refused. Evidence was given by petitioner and James Aikman, bailiff at Christchurch, that respondent and the woman were living in Christchurch. Petitioner bad asked respondent to -ire un the life hp was living and return to her, but ho had not done so. His Honor indicated that a decree nisi would be granted, but the matter was adjourned pending the filing of an affidavit of search for appearance. JOHNSON v. JOHNSON. James .Joseph Smith -Johnson v. Jane Horn Johnson.—Petition for divorce under section 4 of the Marriage Law Amendment Act of last session. Mr C. E. Statham, for petitioner, stated that the parties were separated under deed of separation on December 22, 1914, and had been continuously living apart over since. The parties were married on April 30, 1896, and there were four children, three of whom were living, the youngest 19 years of age. The parties got on very well after the marriage for about 16 years, but then unfortunately ycry unhappy differences arose, ultimately culminating in tho deed of separation being signed. Mr Statham said he would like to ask his Honor’s guidance in the case as to how far they should probe into the conduct of the parties. His Honor remarked that the section might have been more neatlv worded. He imagined, however, that all that it was necessary to prove was that the parties had been married, that there was a deed of separation, that it had been in force for three years, and that it was in full forco now. Evidence was given by petitioner and his brother, Alfred Johnson, who said that petitioner lived with him, and that there was no chance of the parties coming together again. His Honor said that petitioner had brought himself under the terms of the Act and was entitled to a decree. This would be granted, but his Honor said that it had better be moved for the court to make it absolute in ease any fresh light was thrown upon the interpretation of the section of the Act in tho meantime, a course to which counsel assented. Friday, February 2". (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) THEFT FROM DWELLING. Henry Christopher Pedersen, who- had pleaded guilty in the lower court to a charge of theft "from a dwelling, came up for sentence His Honor asked if there was any report from the probation, officer. Mr F. B. Adams, who appeared; for tho Crown Prosecutor (Mr A. S. Adams), sa:d he was not able to state whether tho probaP,';n ri'ffi per hnd eve-n been asked to renort.

Apparently it had not been thought necessary to obtain a report. His Honor: Have you anything to add to the police report ? Mr Adams replied that there was nothing to add. His Honor said that he thought the best course to adopt under the circumstances would be to put the prisoner under the control of the Prisons Board. He would order prisoner to be retained for reformative purposes for a term of not more than three years. EMBEZZLEMENT. Rheophilus La Mcthe Ralfe, who had pleaded guilty to four charges of theft in tho lower court at Oamaru, came up fer sentence. Mr Ongley said it was difficult in this case to say anything in extenuation of what had been done—in fact, it was impossible to say anything. The prisoner was just on 56 years of age, and had a grown-up family. By trade lie was a mason-sculptor, but he had lately been doing commission work and reporting. During the war he had taken an active interest in the raising of funds for patriotic purposes, and unfortunately for himself had been placed in charge, as secretary, oL*tbe funds. Ho must have begun very early to misappropriate the funds. There was apparently a loose system of audit, but of course this was no justification for him taking the money. AVlion the prisoner found he irretrievably to the bad he raised about L2UO and paid it back. lie then resigned and simply awaited arrest, ne had facilitated as far as possible the inquiries into tiie matter and had refused to accept bail, preferring to remain in gaol. Prisoner had asxed him, learned counsel, to say that he regretted very much that lie was not able to repay the money taken. Unfortunately a weakness for cards had been the cause of tile trouble—the money hact been nsec) to finance his losses at a card-playing school. His Honor; The prisoner has pleaded gunty to four charges of theft. One is for xG63 10s Id. Does that include the other three charges ? Mr Adams; The total amount is £686. H:s Honor: The prisoner has paid back £2OO ? Mr Adams: Yes. His Honor said that on the charge of stealing £663 10s Id the prisoner would be sentenced' to two years’ hard labour. As regarded the other three charges prisoner would be sentenced to four months on each charge, with hard labour, the sentences to be cumulative. The sentence is therefore three vears in all. AUCKLAND, February 19 In the Supreme Court, Alfred George England wus sentenced to five years, and YVenzed Joseph Schiska to three year’s, for an indecent offence. The two accused were steward and captain respectively on a coastal boat, and the judge characterised the offence as filthy, disgusting, and abominable. Patrick M’Kibbon, for forgery and false pretences, had previously been committed for offences at Christchurch, Dunedin, and Auckland, and was sentenced to two years’ reformative treatment.