Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

Per Press •. Association.

WELLINGTON, May 21.

In the Divorce Court this afternoon, Mr Justice Button presiding, Charlotte Graham petitioned for a dissolution of her marriage with Dr " Walter Robert Graham, on the'ground of adultery. Tlvi parties were married at Esssndon, in Victoria, in July, .1898, arid'lived, together at Broken Hill in New .South Wales, and afc Palmerston Nortli. • His Honour granted a decree nisi and made an interim order for • ttia custody of the child of the '.marriage. , /, A legal point regarding brands ,wa( settled by .Mr Justice Cooper • in giving judgment, iii the case of Mills v. Riddiford, an appeal'from the decision of the Stipendiary Magistrate 'afc Wellington,"dismissing an : information laid by appellant, an inspector of .stock. Tlie information charged respondent with unlawfully branding, sheep with an ' unregistered brand, namely, females with a quarter, out of the right ear and males with a fork, out of the left ear. The Magistrate held that- the brand as used was a registered brand, and that, therefore, no offence was committed. The respondent's registered brand was a quarter out of the right ear, and fork out of the left ear, sjnd his custom had been for a number of years to. braiid! feihale, sheep with a quarter* out of 1 the' rjght ear and males with a fork out of the left ear. His Honour held that that was not-a legal us 9 of his registered brand; .it was the whole brand which was registered, and not part of it for one class of sheep and part of it for another class. The appeal must be allowed, with £7 7s costs, and the case remitted to the Magistrate with a action to convict. • : .

Judgment was' given, by Mr Justice Cooper to-day in the appeal by Mrs -Weisn against' /her conviction for having sold New Zealand wine "containing a greater quantity of proof spirit than she was authorised by her license to sell. Hn Honor held that it was-not necessary for the. prosecution to prove knowledge on the part of defendant',' nor did her abfence of knowledge- exculpate her. The defendant's license authorised lier to sell New Zealand wine containing not more than 20 per cent, of proof spirit. She sold wine containing appreciably .more than 20 per cent. She therefore sold liquor .she "was nob authorised by liev license to sell, and could not escape from the consequences of that illegal sale. It was contended that she suffered hardships, as the producer represented that the wine did not contain more than; the authorised amount of proof spirit. His Honor answered that she had her remedy agtunst the manufacturer. The appeal was dismissed with seven guineas costs.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THD19070522.2.42

Bibliographic details

Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13292, 22 May 1907, Page 5

Word Count
446

SUPREME COURT. Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13292, 22 May 1907, Page 5

SUPREME COURT. Timaru Herald, Volume XC, Issue 13292, 22 May 1907, Page 5