SUPREME COURT.

Wanganui Herald, Volume XX, Issue 5883, 20 April 1886, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Gillies), Mohday, Ajbil 19th, 1886. jbnßen v 3pebkihs. In this case lengthy evidence was givea 0Q both sides, the plaintiff's witnesses; Messrs Turner (manager Bank of Australasia), Snelson (auctioneer), and Hartley backing up the contention of the plaintiff that it was understood that there was no restriction on the sale of the Kairanga Native Reserve, while Messrs Burr and Hawkins, sen?, and junr., stated for ths defendant that it waa known all along that then was a restriction over the land, After counsel on both aides had been heard, His Honor Addressed the jury at length on the evidence, and placed • two issues before them— (l) Whether the plaintiff informed the defendant that the Governor's assent was necessary j (2) If not so told what damage had he suffered by the negligenoe of the defendant: The jury re* tired at 9,15, and at midnight not being able to agree, nor yet to obtain a three-fourths verdict, they «ere looked up for the night. Tuesday, April 20th, 1888. , Jensen v Perkins*— On the jury being brought in they could not agree, flis Honor said he was sorry they could not agree, as it would entail a fresh trial on the partief, bat they had a duty to perform, and he had no doubt they bad done bo honestly. They were discharged from any further attendance at the sittings. • His Honor said he supposed , that the only oourae would be to adjourn tho case till next sittings, Mr Hutchison pointed out tbat as the defendant was a resident of Sydney, it would mean a fresh Journey to New Zealand within 6 months; He thought it might be taken at a special sitting with* any business which might be left over. He pointed out that the rules provided it must be taken at the same or a special sitting. His Honor on looking up the code decided that it could not bo taken at that sittings. It would be left to the plaintiff to take what steps he chose as to bringing on a future action. Mr Baker made application for some seourity as to costs, the defendant's counsel having entered into an agreement with plain* tiff's counsel that as he was late with his pleadings, he should bear the costs. They asked as the defendant lived out of the colony' some protection should be granted' for the payment of costs. His Honor decided thatne had not power to interfere in the matter. . DIVORCE. "•'■ BOBEBT3 V BOBBBTB AND JOHN WILKS (CO* BESPONDBHT') Mr Baker appeared for the petitioner, and ' Mr Hutchison for co-respondent. The following jury were empanelled :— '" J. Windsor, A. Hallaghan, T. Allen, J< Manley, 8. Richards, P. Galvin, W. H. • Nettleehip, F. R. Parlies, B: Perry, J« Hat. cher, and E, Perritt, Mr Parkes was chosen ' Foreman. Mr. Baker stated that tho details were few, as the parties were living in open adultery, The petition set forth that the parties wore married on the 24th of June, 1873,, by the Rev. J, Law, at Wairarapa, by whioh marriage there had been issue three children j that on the 6th of March, 1883, Catherine . Lavinia Roberts left her husband, and since that time had lived in open adultery with the co-respondent. The questions to be submitted would be— (l) Whether the adultery had been committed ; (2) Whether with any other person than the co-respondent ; and (3) what damages, if any, was petitioner was entitled to. John Roberts, the husband, gave evidence as to the time his wife had lef fc[hitn f and her conduct since then/ ' • ' Mr Hutchison asked to be allowed to post* pone the crow-examination, aa there' was no evidence of adultery against the oo*respon* dent* His Honor agreed to this course. On look* . ing at tho marriage certificate His Honor said that he djd not consider it sufficient for tho purposes of evidence, not bearing the Registrar-General's stamp, The clergyman's certificate was not sufficient. The law provided for one means of proof, and that must be given, unless witnesses of the marriage could be called. Mr Baker replied that be had a witness to prove the marriage; After hearing a quantity of evidence, both for and against, the jury were addressed by counsel and His Honor, and then retired to. consider their verdict. On resuming at 2.30 the foreman of the jury came in to ask a question as to coats going against the co-respondent, to whioh His Honor replied' that, in any case, the co*res« pondent would have to bear costs. A few minutes later the jury returned with a verdict for one shilling damages against the co-respondent. The decree nisi was granted.