SUPREME COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 19878, 20 February 1920, Page 6

SUPREME COURT.

THE MILLIKEN CASE. in the Supremo Court tbis morning his Honor Air Justice Hcrdman heard legal argument in the case AVilhelminc. Theresa Millikcn (Mr O. T. J. Alper?) v. Janies Miiliken, nmholder of Flock Hill, near Cass (Mr AY. J. Sim), an application for a judicial separation and custody of children.

At the opening proceedings counsel for the petitioner asked that, owing to the character of the evidence, the case should bo heard in Chambers. His Honor made an order accordingly. To-day the petitioner’s counsel moved formally for a decree nisi, and submitted that there had been desertion and cruelty, which effectively revived the original charge of adultery, said by tho respondent to have been condonca. Air Sim contended that to revive previously condoned adultery it was necessary that there should be a complete matrimonial offence. Desertion did not become a matrimonial offonco until it had continued for two years. The cruelty alleged did not come within the definition of legal cruelty. Mr Alpors replied that his Honor would be justified in holding that nine months’ deseitiou was a matrimonial offence, a ruling whirh had been given in New South AVoles. The crueltyproved was also quite sufficient to constitute a matrimonial offence. .

_ His Honor said that he would take time to consider tho matter.

AN APPEAL CASE,

[n the Magistrate’s Court on January 11, Mr 'V. G. Day. S.M., dismissed the information in a ease in which Richard Candy, sheep farmer, of Camp Bay, Purau, was charged with failing to tako reasonable or diligent steps to promote the destruction of rabbits on his land within reasonable time. Albert Radford. inspector tor the Ranks Peninsula Rabbit Board, now appealed against that decision. Mr M. J. Gresson appeared fur tbo appellant, and Mr C. S. Thomas tor the respondent. Mr Gresson said that tbo point was whether the opinion of the rabbit inspector was final, and iiie appeal was ot great public; importance. Under tbo amending legislation of last year, tbo Act passed back to what it bad been in 1882, and said that the Magistrate bad no powgr to interfere with the discretion of the inspector. All that was left to the Magistrate was to say what tine should be inflicted. The inspector had given Candy notice to clear his land of rabbits, and, on making inspections subsequently, found that the number of rabbits bad increased. Appellant had had eleven years’ experience and bis opinion was that if poison were properly laid, the rabbits should be exterminated. The question was whether the -bona fide opinion of the inspector was the deciding point. ■ Tbo Magistrate had seemed to fear that an nnworthr inspector might take advantage ot a ruling that said he had full power to judge whether reasonable stops had been taken. Counsel submitted that this bogey did not exist, because the amount of tbo fine -was always left to the Magistrate. Further, the granting of full authority to inspectors or commissioners was no new thing in New Zealand law. • *

Mr Ihomas said that the Magistrate had held that he was not satisfied that the inspector had bona tide come to conclusion that the Acts had not been carried out in the wav they should have been: and that the inspector had not taken reasonable steps to come to the conclusion be bad come to. The question was whether the Magistrate" it ho were satisfied that the inspector fpd I 1 exercise bis discretion in a judicial and bona fide manner, had power to refuse to convict on the charge. (Proceeding.)