A Fine out
, — _^ — .. — , Per United Press Association. The Chief Justice gave his decision to-day in the case Monro v, Monro. The wife sued the husband under section 6 of the Indictable Offences Summary Jurisdiction, Act, 1900, for maintenance. For the husband, it was contended in the court below that he had the option of being tiied by a jury. Mr Cai'ew upheld this contention, and, defendant having elected to be so tried, Mr Solomon, for petitioner, applied for a mandamus to compel the S.M. to hear the case. The Chief Justice decided that it would require clear and precise words to set aside the peculiar special pro-i visions Of . the Destitute Persons Act, .and certainly the general -words of the Indictable Summary Jurisdiction Act do vnot propose to do so. But, if the charge had come under section 6 of the latter Act the Court might have been compelled to refuse a mandamus, however absurd and anotnaiousi the result might have been. As no offence was here, charged, C he saw ■ no< reason wliy it should be so brought, and he ordered the magistrate to rhear the case.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19030806.2.28
Bibliographic details
Southland Times, Issue 19117, 6 August 1903, Page 3
Word Count
188A Fine out Southland Times, Issue 19117, 6 August 1903, Page 3
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in