SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVI, Issue 19, 23 June 1913, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

( NEW PLYMOUTH SESSIONS, CIVIL CASES. The New Plymouth sittings of the Supreme Court were continued on Saturday before his Honor Mr. Justice Edwards. A TRAMWAY DISPUTE. Frederick William Green, Andrew Gilholy, Johanna Raill and Patrick Raill claimed from the Official Assignee in the estate of James Patterson and Lavinia Patterson, a third person, the sum of £151) 16s 2d. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for the plaintiffs, Mr. J. H. Quilliam for the Official Assignee, and Mr. H. A. Bamford, for the third party, Lavinia Patterson. In opening the case for the plaintiffs, Mr. Johnstone said that the claim was for rent and for dam- ' ages, and breach of covenant. On August 24, 1907, John James Patterson, a solicitor in Dannevirkc, and also carrying on business at Koru under the style of the Koru Sawmilling Co., entered into a deed with the plaintiffs, whereby they agreed to grant him certain tramway rights over section 162, Oakura, in consideration of which rights he agreed to pay the sum of £52, to be paid halfyearly, and also agreed at the end of the term to remove the tramline, clear away all debris, all rubbish, and then sow'the land with the best mixed English grasses. The deed also had a provision that if Patterson required an extension of the .term, he was entitled to a further term not exceeding at the same rental and conditions,' except that there could be no further extension of the term, and providing alsa that Patterson should have the right to | terminate the extension at any time upon giving three months' notice. Notice was given of the intention to apply for renewal on July 4, 1908, and other dates, but on August 21, 1908, Mr. Patterson became a bankrupt and his estate passed into the lianas of the defendant. Mr. Johnstone explained, that the rent had been paid up to June 2, .1911. At the time the deed was drawn up and tramway grant entered into, Patterson was the owner of areas of land in the neighborhood of the plaintiff's farm, and the tramway was necessary for the purpose of reaching it. The deed was admitted.

The evidence of Patrick Raill, fanner, living at Koru, and one of the plaintiffs in the action, bore out the statements in his counsel's opening. To Mr. Quilliam: The tramway was of no advantage when in crossing creeks. He had made no- offer to settle any claims under the deed in respect to the tramway when he visited Dannevirke on the occasion of Patterson's meeting of creditors there.

Evidence was given by F. P. Cor kill, valuer, New Plymouth, that to restore the land as far as possible to its original condition, and to grass it, would cost about £66.

Louis Coster Sladden, civil engineer, > practising in New Plyomuth, stated in ( evidence that his firm had laid down the I tramline in the first instance, though ' he personally had nothing to do with it. He had inspected the line some days ago, ' and estimated that the cost of removing the tramline, clearing away all debris and rubbish, and sowing in grass would cost abont £SO. To Mr.. Quilliam: The tramway was ' about' 32 chains in length and the width 7ft, the area being about one-third of ' an acre. This closed Mr. Johnstone's case. Mr. Quilliam, in his address, said that the deed under which these proceedings were brought required a written notice if the lessee or tenant desired to renew it. He submitted that no notice had been given. Mr. Johnstone had produced what he claimed to be a notice of renewal, but it was signed by R. G. Patterson for the Koru Sawmilling Company, and R. G. Patterson was not authorised to give that notice at all. Mr. Johnstone was allowed to re-open his case, and he called A. R. Standish, solicitor, New Plymouth, and N. L. Gurr, Official Assignee, of Dannevirke, and one of the defendants. The latter deposed that he had never exercised any rights over section 162. He was unaware of the existence of the deed for some time, and he had immediately lodged a disclaimer with Messrs. Standish and Johnstone immediately on learning of its existence. Mr. Johnstone also called John James Patterson, who denied, on oath, that notice of renewal of the lease had been given by his authority. R. J. Patterson had got no knowledge of the deed from him. Mr. Quilliam raised two non-suit points: (1) That a disclaimer had been lodged within the time limit of the Bankruptcy Act; (2) that there was no proof of any authority to give notice of renewal. His Honor reserved his decision. IN DIVORCE. A HUSBAND'S PETITION. William Fowler (Mr. L. H. Ryan) petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage with Catherine Minerva Fowler. Charles Hodge was joined as co-respondent. Mr. Ryan, in opening the case for the petitioner, said that the parties were married in 1906, and went to Alton to reside. In 100!) petitioner bought a hotel at Alton and went to live there. The husband and wife lived quite hap- . pily together for several years. Petitioners' wife assisted in the management of his house, and was a very good wife to him. He was unsuspicious of any wrong in her life until January 22nd of this year. Petitioner had gone out of the hotel for a while, but returned and went into his office, from where he heard his wife and co-respondent, Hodge, ouarrelling. His wife was reproaching Hodge with having ruined her, and being about now to abandon her for some other girl or woman. Hodge went out of the building, and Mrs. Fowler then went crying into the office of the hotel. Petitioner told her tliat he had been in the office ajul had heard what had passed between Hodge and herself. She admitted adultery with Hodge on sundry occasions, and asked her husband to see Hodge, who was about the premises. Petitioner went out into the hotel yard, and there saw Hodge. Mrs. Fowler was also present. He accused Hodge of committing adultery with his wife, Mrs. Fowler, and co-respondent admitted it. Petitioner told his wife that he would take steps to obtain a divorce. A couple of days afterwards, Mrs. Fow- , lev left the hotel, and went to live with her own people. Later, petitioner received a letter from Waitara, in which she said she had done him the most serious injury she could do, and pleaded with him to forgive her. There would be the 'corrobprative evidence of Mr. Sullivan, who on the Ist of January was in the hotel. Petitioner had been in Stratford, and Sullivan was looking after the hotel for him. Sullivan returned rather late in the night, and, hearing some noise in the private part of the house, went to the passage and saw Mrs. Fowler's door open. He saw Hodge partly undressed; co-respondent's collar was undone, and his hoots were beside the bed. Sullivan ordered Hodge off the premises, and Hodge went. He did not tell Fowler anything of this, because Mrs. Fowler pleaded with him not to mention anything of the nSatter to respondent because it would make serious trouble l>el ween them. Counsel's opening was corroborated by Ihe evidence of respondent.

His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in. three months. Costs on the highest scale were granted against the co-respondent. , A WIFE'S PETITION

Lilian Rose Josephine Corrigan petitioned for a divorce from Walter Leonard Corrigan, on the gounds of adultery. Mr. R. G. Sellar appeared for the petitioner.

In her evidence, petitioner stated that hor marriage took place in 1910, and there was one child, the custody of which she had been granted, when a separation order was made in July 1911. This deed was entered into as a result of proceedings for cruelty and failure to maintain. She had since been living npart from her husband, but in May of this year, she had offered to return. In an interview, her husband had told her thai he could not take her back for the reason that lie had got another girl into trouble. Patrick Corrigan, a brother of the respondent, was present, and had heard the conversation.

Corroborative evidence was given by Patrick Corrigan, farm hand, of Normanby, Who deposed that on February last, his brother had told him that (he had got a girl into trouble, and asked what was the best thing to do. Witness said he did not know. He was present at an interview between Mr. and Mrs. Corrigan, when the latter had asked his brother for money. The respondent had said he would not support her, but would 1 support the child. Me had also heard the conversation repeated by Mrs. Corrigan. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months, costs on the highest scale. , Mr. Sellars applied for the custody of the child, which wag granted. The Court was then adjourned until I to-day.