SUPREME COURT.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XXXV, Issue 11224, 13 March 1908, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

-'SMITH- v. SMITH. Mary Elizabeth Smith v. Abbutsford Smith : Motion by plaintiff for confirmation of Registrar's report ; motion by respondent fui" objection to Registrar's report. Mi G, Lysiiar appeared . for plaintiff, and Mr H. J. Finn for respondent. Counsel for respondent submitted UkJt the report slum'd not h.tv.g been filed lor ■within 14 days ; further, that the finding of the- Registrar, that respondent should derive £312 .net profit as a shetpfartner, was against the weight of evidence. He declared that such \v«s impossible .upon a property valued at £1764. That was the equity of redemption found by the Registrar, tko tot-.il valuation of the pro]H«ity being- £, 7 r680. The Registrar Jiad made no ailowvinoc for respondent's or hi.s own maintenance. The finding appeared to be made on profits made from moneys borrowed fiom the Government. The report did not show the present inconic of respondent or the probable m. come he should derive. He agreed . that the property diodld produce £226, but held that this was probably the net amount. The Registrar's finding a s to a net income of £312 was bashed on the ground that 'the propeity was fully stock-<-d, but the land wa.s not; it w« s still partly m bush. Ho a*ked tlio finding to bo induced to- £226. Counsel for plaintiff, m reply to his Honor, said the ore'er at present stood at £2 6h per week. Tlie application of the inquiry was to increase it. In reply, he submitted th.it respondent's income for twelve months prioi- to the inquiry avus £617. the annual expenses £291. . loaving a net income of £274. Respondent's poMtion was rapidly increasing^ and expert evidence showed 'the land was capable of earning more. Respondent . had 7GC acres altcijether. m two holdings. Ho iiuiintiiined counsel for res|joud<.<ut lui<l not slwwn where thy Registrar. • wa* "wrong. (Left Sitting.)