AN INTERESTING CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 11926, 8 February 1917, Page 2

AN INTERESTING CASE.

A QUESTION OF PTvSIDFAOE. V,. J. WATT AM) THF, T! K< 11 STTCIF A ffiP" of flf'P in terror o"cupt<vl the aM-ntinr, «. Mr F. O. IFnl. >.AF. at tlu> Xanior Madsrrate's Court on Monday, states the ■•Dominion," •.v'li'Mi Jam.:- Fdward Wan. a wellknown horse and land was with bfino; a member of tlio. l-irsv'Divi-ion of :h.- N-w Zealand Kxpednmnary Ko«-.-.- and In. vine failed to r.-aistor. lr way -Late.! hy ' H' (, ° ( i, flt , do.eiulant was yearn ~.• ~„,, >m ele. and a resident of New /.raianH. Mr Fusk. who appeared tor the <|oWmdaut and enim-ed n l»l-:. Nt nob admired .aib.v, to enrol. i; m : ft i,l that Won ™. no; n resident p) lllk r , H , u . ;n „ of the AH. as his home :U nl interest, were in Australia. More--0,-(„ . defendant was on the ( nmmnnwoaFh Military Huil. •:'.,:,F.Vndaut. in jiiv.nil <-vwW <m ~,,„„■„ FduiK. said that on Au-ust : u iniv . i„ ~,„. with his stoiv- , .' ';: ,h ::Yo:,;:!;;r:^\rr:- ! aiA,K.ns- '..;„,] ...„,{■ another. "'Suipitou. H"' '■ ' .',,.-:,wl iho>'t '.'iO.OOO sheep and . ,■ ~, , r.IOA'FO a<-n... I'"' '-.. T.i ..;'.,, -,0 00') ;,n-0,. About inree and ~r , re-Hence n, Syln.,. | , ~:.,!' i„, inioniion ni eve returning ; , No,-zV»b.n,Uo rp.sMo. H~ accord-. ,n>dv sold his "Xp;a.iarawa rosulony. ami' furniture, takinp all hv< valuab < <!ih',. r -Oh ban. His adjoining h (m F\^roVbv- i , ! n.H,tiY sold, and )>rothe market lor sain. H«' n.ir-ndrd to oppose oi nil his Now Zealand interests. Witney had taken a. house w .„„•, had another at He l.iiv.,-] j, permanent room at the I "ion Cnd. II" supervised nil >'if bHmonsland pr<iiii--rt,v. nearly all Ins time he- ,,!■• u.-oupir-.l in tlwt A\ ;iness was on the Cnnirannwealt-h roll, whir ~,, (!,.. Loimreach rob. 110 liad turllior <-airoli.>d <n i he AiK:r..]ian military roll. FeHau, paj.ee- had b-r-n sont to him whieh ho alwavs Idled in and loiurn- .>.]. Witness always visited New Zealand about i.bis time of the year, takin.■• a rot nrn tiekei-. This timo a, return ticket vronld not lie issued on acvouni of the Mrik<-. His visit tliis nine w:is tor the pur, .mm- of seeino; his mother and si-tor/ aim weiv. ill. and in connection with certain properties still on the market. Witness vfcill luwl raroin Now Zealand, also some in trainmir in Svdn.y. Melbourne and

! iinsbano. Ho intended to have hi-. ; trainer and horses taken in Sydney as s.ion ;is possible. I..'i i; t y< : 'pr. when lie si'iu four hotvo Live!; from Australia i with his rrainer. Ouinlivan. it was in ' the hitler's interest;- puroh . Ak soon I as hi* stud farm could he moved, wit- ; nev- said he would ;j;ivo up all racing : interests in New Zealand. Witness ; said he always in! ended lo return front S liis visits. AH his " LoiiKlands " pro- : pertv. with the exception of MX) acres, 1 had heeu sold. Witness's residence was | i>i Australia, and lie. had no inienthva ; io return here for residence. Cross-examined, witness said lie land;od in Auckland on Christmas Day. | \Virr.es*. did not know it his name was < *tili on the electoral roll. Perhaps his : name was still on the property qualified ion roll Witness was in partnership v:i:h Mr Tt (i h ™ l \ in ) out-oi-poeKet n,u-ni. He still had r ;i o,..ltor«fts in N'-w Zeal/md. Witnessfi n.ierest. was not in raeme; .n New Zealand, it was his trainer s interest lie ]>a<] notices from the military authority i„ Australia, and ah. ays tdled t.iem m ;)s required. Conscription was not in force theie. , ... , . , , llk Worship said thai il oetenoant had Idled in ih« miliary tonus. tn Aus-,,-alia he could not be exited iox-.w ] "-^£%Z n i:n ar you offered your | services in. any way." j Witness replial o h^H plovoos had -»o. ami he had .o- | !.,i«; 0 .-l to provide tor the:.; <mpendont.s. , Australia. Ah«ur three v,., >', defendant <.xpress:n h-s niten un.to -- shloin AuMTi.Ua, and .ovcr a 11.. ; _ | nation with Now Zealand, lie .u .o u , uVdv dispell of his house prope. t.>. ■ W'ttrtoss corroborated dolendnnt * ovidenoo us to his visits to New Zealand. . Valentine LJoadley managing ; director oi lloadley. Son and btewurt, , sai<l that defendant was at one Umi, n.| Inrge. shareholder m- Uiat, busmen. a n h wason their board. kney, a I j his properties three t ßO. In .10..5, i when detendant let the >onH,non, I w it„o<w's firm disposed Ivy auH.imi ot his j •■ Nc'iJa-awa M house and effects. \\ ith | regard to his shares defendant instruct- ; ..ff' witness to transfer his whole in-j Crests na he could lie oi no turtner ii«o. j lie thereon ceased to he a shareholderj and director. AH defendants proper-; ties were placed on the manuu. inn ; li>*i «nlo lining a few days ago. .. I Wilfred C. Sproule.. of the linn oi ( Cotterill and Humphries, -aid his jirm j find alwavs done business mr defend- j ant. -ddiree years W defendant told j witness he was winding up his athurs. | When asked to advance money ho alwavs said he wanted it in Australia. Thomas Frare'is Quiiiuvan, hors" trainer, said he had keen trauimß:_ for Mr Watt for nineteen yeat'H. "When defendant went to reside in Australia three Vears ago, lie. wanted witness to <■ <n> villi liim and lake all the horses. He j eouM not £o on account ot family mat- j in* About a vear a.s;o he took horses j to An.stralia, for Mr Stead. Some dif- j le.rence ihen arose hctween witness and j the latter. Pefendani then took four j of his Australian horses awl made witii"ss hriim them to New Zealand with ! him. This was to «ivo witness a fresh j start. Dffenda.nt attain requested him to <zo over to Australia and take all tholiorses. He intended |o go over as soon as' possible. At this stage defendant's passport for Australia was produced, and counsel for the defence explained that they were given to residents only, and had to ho reproduced on arrival hack in Australia. Hi* Worship said the facts before him clearly showed that .do-fond-ant's domicile or "place of residence was Australia. The matter, however, was of such importance that h<* wonlT] reservo his decision until the following day. Mr Reid delivered judgment on Tuesday, when ho said there was very little doubt that defendant was not, a resident of New Zealand. Mr Watt admitted that he was bom in New Zealand, hut the ovidence clearly showed that he had transferred his interests to Australia several years ago, nnd had since voted at an election in (Queensland. The polico had offered no evidonco to proTO that Mr Watt was liable to register in New Zealand. The information waa therefor© dismissed.