SUPREME COURT.

Otago Witness, Issue 3713, 12 May 1925, Page 58

SUPREME COURT.

IN BANKRUPTCY. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) Mr Justice Sim heard applications for discharge from bankruptcy in the Supreme Court at 11 a.m. on the 4th. In re John Perry, of Milton, miner, the Official Assignee, Mr E. W. Cave, said that bankrupt had paid the money and he did not propose to oppose his discharge. Bankrupt was discharged accordingly. In re Herbert Ernest Smith, of Dunedin, commercial traveller, bankrupt was not represented. Mr Cave said he had leally no objection to the discharge being granted. Bankrupt might have been under a misapprehension in regard to the date. The case was adjourned till next sittings. In re Thomas Ireland, formerly of Dunedin, and now of Hamilton, clerk, Mr F. B. Adams appearod in support of the application for discharge. His Honor remarked that practically the bankrupt’s only creditor was his wife. Mr Adams said there had been a reconciliation. An order was made for the bankrupt’s discharge. In re Joseph Hill, Mr Cave said that bankrupt had only paid in so much on account, and he asked that the case be adjourned. Ilis Honor said that the application would be granted at next sittings. In 17 bankrupt estates the Deputy Official Assignee in Oamaru obtained his release. QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURE. Jean Menzies Jamieson was plaintiff, William Jamieson, William Manson, and David Wishart, defendants, and William Jamieson, claimant, in an action in which William Jamieson, one of the defendants in the capacity of a trustee, claimed the same amount that the plaintiff, his wife, claimed, in her action against the trustee and executors. Mr Longuet asked his Honor to issue an interpleading summons ta William Jamieson, submitting that the matter was one of pure interpleading. His Honor said it was a question whether the husband or the wife was entitled to recover, and he could not see that it was a question of interpleading. Mr J. B. Callan (instructed by Messrs Watson and Haggitt, solicitors for the plaintiff) said he had simply been instructed to concur in any course being taken that would lead to the determination of the question.—His Honor said this was really a summons for advice and direction. He directed the defendants Manson and Wishart to file a statement of defenoe denying the plaintiff’s claim and allow the question in dispute to be settled on trial, defendants to pay £3 3s to plaintiff for her costs of summons. In a bill writ action in the case of E. T Partridge and O. and W. Shiel, Mr Callan raised the point whether the action should be set down for the,session of the court or whether it should come on as a matter of right. His Honor decided that it was a proper practice that such an action should be set down. —Mr Callan pointed out that he was now after the time for having the action set down. —His Honor treated the matter as an application for leave to set it down and authorised the Registrar to set it down. Thursday, May 7. IN DIVORCE. (Before his Honor Mr Justice Sim.) ADAMS v. ADAMS. John Stoneham Adams sought a dissolution of his marriage with Eva Proctor Adams on the ground of adultery. Michael Doucherty was cited as co-respondent. Mr W. (r. Hay appeared for the petitioner, Mr F. W. Ongley (Oamaru) for the respondent, and Mr A. C. Hanlon for the co-respondent. This case was heard before his Honor and a jury of 12. Mr Hay stated that an arrangement had been made as to the amount of damages, so that the jury would be relieved of the most important part of its task. Mr Ongley said he wished to withdraw the defence so far as it waa in his power to do 80. His Honor said it resolved itself into an undefended case, in which the jury had to assess the damages. Mr llay said that £750 had been claimed as damages, but it had been agreed that the amount be fixed at £l5O. Mr Ha,' said the petitioner had a small farm of SO acres at Otekaike. The corespondent was a retired stonemason residing some distance outside Oamaru. The petitioner and the respondent were married on March 29, 1905, in Oamaru. At that time the petitioner was a home missionary of the Presbyterian Church. He gave up missionary work about 1910, and took a farm at Livingstone, and in 1923 he went to Otekaike. There were three children of the marriage—a girl 18 years of age, a girl 17 years, and a boy 15. The wife got dissatisfied with country life and wanted to live in town, hut unfortunately the husband could not very well live in town They got on fairly well for a time, but eventually the wife got into the habit of going in to Oamaru. About the beginning of last year the wife suggested that they should separate, and finally she insisted on getting a separation agreement privately. She told her husband about last June that she wanted a SQparation so that after three years she could get a divorce. Although the husband was not agreeable he eventually consented to a separation agreement. The petitioner had reason to suspect that she had gone too far with Doucherty and he had her movements watched, with the result that on December 2 the respondent and the co-respondent were found together in a tent in an orchard near the Oamaru Gardens. After evidence had been piven on behalf of the petitioner, a decree nisi was granted, with leave to make it absolute in three months. An interim order wa« made for the custody of the youngest child. The co-respondent was ordered to pay the petitioner’s costs on the highest scale, disbursements and witness’s expenses to be fixed by the registrar. The co-respondent was ordered to pay damages into court forthwith. REIDY v. REIDY. Susanna Reidy petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with James Reidy on the around of desertion. This case wos heard before the judge alone. Mr Ongley appeared for the petitioner. He stated that the parties were married in 1919. The respondent was a Home Country man and proved to be a pretty heavy drinker. He was farming at Allan Holme, near Wuimate, but eventually he drank himself out of his farm. The petitioner had to leave him sometimes while he was on drinking bouts. Eventually another man wm put into the place. The petitioner went to her mother’s place, where a baby was born a few months later, and the respondent promised to get another home for her. About two months later he wrote to her stating that he was rabbiting. She saw him idout 14 months later, when he gave her £lO for the baby. He was drunk on

that occasion. He was always promising to pull himself together. Apart from another £1 which was given to the baby she had received no assistance from him. After evidence had been given a decree nisi was granted with leave to make it absolute in three months. An interim order was made for the custody of the child, and the petitioner was allowed costs on the lowest scale. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Sim.) PURCHASE OF A LAUNCH. Mt Jusitice Sim sat at the Supreme Court on Friday morning. The only matter brought before his Honor was a claim for the payment of £239, being the balance owing for the purchase of a launch. The plaintiff was Robert Cunningham Miller, and the defendant Thomas Parker. Mr R. S. Bremner (instructed by Mr Gillies) appeared for the plaintiff, and there was no appearance on the other , side. Mr Bremner stated that defendant had filed a defence, but there was no appearance in support of it. On October 14 last at Port Ch aimers the defendant wanted to purchase a boat, and entered into negotiations with Mr Miller (plaintiff). He got into contact with plaintiff, and through the medium of a Mr Coleman he had purchased a launch for £240. Defendant had not been satisfied as to the condition of the engine on the launch, and he got Mr Coleman to have a look at the engine. Mr Coleman was satisfied that the engine was in good order, and the purchase was agreed upon at £2OO, and a deposit of £1 was paid through the medium of Mr Coleman. The only ground that could possibly affect the position was that the defendant was unable to pay the purchase money. Evidence was given by plaintiff, contractor and shipwright of Port Chalmers, who stated that the purchase money was £240, and that Coleman had been paid £1 as a deposit. Archibald Coleman, motor mechanic, said that defendant had come to him and asked him if he knew of a motor boat suitable for work at Wellington. Witness had referred defendant to plaintiff, and had said that he (plaintiff) had a boat such as defendant required. Defendant had asked if the engine was all right, and witness had examined it, but had refused to give any guarantee concerning it, and had finally referred defendant to plaintiff in regard to tho matter. Defendant was anxious as to the engine, and wanted him (witness) to give an assurance that the engine was all right. His Honor gave judgment for plaintiff for £239, with costs according to scale; disbursements and witness’s expenses to be fixed by the Registrar. His Honor did not include in his judgment anything for interest.