SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 7332, 19 February 1902, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

* Wednesday, Feb. 19. A sitting of the Supreme Court was held this morning, and 1 his Honor Mr Justice Denniston gave judgment in the cases Pratt v. Bailey, a baavco case, H~a.ll v. Hall, in divorce, and Livingstone v. Livingston*, in ddvorce. PRATT V. BAILEY. His Honor said' that this cms© was an appeal from the decision of the Stipendiiaay Magistrate, Christchurch. It had been proved on the heading that Constable Pratt entered the hotel of which, defendant was the license, <m Sundaiy, Sept. 22, 1901, and found Bailey, jun., and Hamilton engaged in playing billiards. Two other men, residents of Christchurch, were also ia the billiard-room. Bailey, th© licensee was on the premises at the time, and came into the billiard-room while- the constable was there, stopped the playing, and remonstrated with his son. There was no evidence that the defendant had knowledge of billiards being played, but the Magistrate had heldl that he had failed to take reasonable «teps to. prevent this being- done. Th© Magistrate had not stated that the failure to take such steps had been of a character to amount^to connivance and in the absence of a specific finding, his Honor did not think himself justified in assuming this againstthe defendant. The short question to be decided was, therefore, whether the neglect to take reasonable precautions to prevent billiard playing during prohibited hours was in it se **> in the absence of connivance, "allowing" such playing. His Honor mentioned a number of cases bearing on the point in dispute. If the Magistrate had in, the case found that the want of reasonable precautions had amounted to wilful avoidance of precautions, with the intention, of facilitating gaming in forbidden hours, such a finding would, in his Honor's opinion, have justified a conviction. Failure to take reasonable steps amounted only to negligence or carelessness. If his Honor were to hold that negligence or carelessness which was not in itself evidence of connivance, or had not been the mea.ns of giving a person in charge the opportunity to connive at a 1 breach of the law, justified a conviction for " allowing !' gaming, he would, in his opinion, be extending the- liability beyond the principle established by previous authority. His Honor, therefore, thought that the appeal should be allowed. Mr Kippenberger, with him Mr Beswick, appeared ior appellant, and Mr String€r for respondent. LIVINGSTONE V. LIVINGSTONE. In this case Emma Rebecca Livingstone, petitioner, asked for dissolution of marriage with her husband, Matthew Anderson. Livingstone, on the grounds of cruelty and misconduct. ' His Honor outlined the case. Petitioner had obtained a deed of separation against her husband in 1897 on. account of his conduct, she receiving an allowance. In 1901 the- respondent asked his wife to take proceedings to set him free. She was anxious to obtain a divorce, but feared that she would then lose her allowance. The respondent assured her that he would make a good settlement on. her. She consulted a solicitor, who advised her she could obtain a divorce. On the same day the parties called on Dr Elmslie, and respondent handed him, for petitioner, a post-dated cheque for £500. Later he gave one which would be cashed, and Dr Elmslie obtained the money and gave to a solicitor £10, " which respondent had supplied. The case was brought as undefended* Three months later \ respondent, through a solicitor, applied for a return of the money, which was refused, and legal proceedings were brought. Dr Elms; lie interpleaded. On the divorce case being called for trial, counsel for respondent, an ■appearance hying been entered, had 1 stated 1 these facts and applied for leave to file a defence of collusion, and also alleging condonation, a defence clearly untenable on its face. There was no evidence of any attempt or intention, to mislead or not fully > inform the Court. Thes% then> -were-; the., facts. The wife had a real desire to have the marriage dissolved, but had abstained from taking proceedings from an honest belief that it would interfere with the support she was receiving from iher husband. It was clearly out of the question for the parties to again live together, and the husband was anxious to "make an honest woman " of the woman with "whom he was living; To remove the wife's objection, he agreed to pay £-500 on condition of her taking proceedings to dissolve the marriage. Was this a collusive agreement? His Honor discussed the law on collusion at length. Finally he stated that in his opinion the agreement proved to have been made by the parties in the present case was riot collusion within the meaning which, in his opinion, should- be given to the word in this colony. Hie Honor had intimated that if he arrived at this conclusion, he would not pronounce a decree until respondent's couHsel should have had an opportunity of supporting his contention in the interpleader suit, that the respondent was entitled to have the money returned at any time before th© decree. He therefore fixed Tuesday next for the hearing of the interpleader. Mr Bates appeared on behalf of petitioner and Mr Beswick for respondent. Mr Bruges appeared for Dr Elmslie. [Per Press Association.] WELLINGTON, Feb. 19. .Edgar Gustave Marck, an old gaol-bird, who pleaded guilty at the Magistrate's Court to theft, was sentenced by .Mr Justice Edwards to two years' imprisonment, concurrent with his present sentence.