THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16145, 25 February 1918, Page 4

THE COURTS.

MAGISTERIAL.

i (Boioro Mr H. "W. Bishop, S.M.) . i ' I)RI'NK!£NNE*S. i Gcor r, c Tutnbull was convicted and : come up for when ca ii(>ii .on un charges of drunkenness and breaking his prohibition order. I (Before Mr T. A. B. BaiUy, S.M.) 1 .) n)i;Ml r .NT SCMMONcjES. i Graham, Wilson, mid Smellie (Mr i Williams) yrocwded against Hcnr> I .James J.'i itcliard unaer _ a judgment ; summons lor a debt ot £< Is ,( -l> UCIL i \h>- dcteudant »;i- ordered _to I'i'.y at the rate, of 'J> Od weekly, m ueiilllll -oven day,'- imprisonment. ; lii ? hi' • ase ot John Clarke \Mr Wdliani-»' v. Walter Pearcc, debt io 10s, : debt!'! »as examined as to his means I and ileruestie affairs, and was made the ■ subject of an order ior 2s Gd per 'neek, ■ in dciault thien days" imprisonment. Herrv and C<>. "Mr Thomas) claimed 1 i\". (k '3d finder a judgment summons from W. Waller, wiio did not appear, i and was ordered to pay the amount ovini; fortwith, in drlault li\c dajs imprisonment. William Henery (Mr Twyncham) was ordered to pay Harvey and Co. (Mr Johnston) the? sum ol £1- 3s fd, at the rate of 10s nor month, in deiault twelve days' imprisonment. A WILL CASE. (rnESS ASSOCIATION TELEGttAM.) WELLINGTON, February S-i. The I niel Justice (sir Robert itout) to-ciav gave judgment regarding tnu will of me hue Andrew Laxcy liunultoii. who lett tho residue ol nis estate of to the Roman Catholic Church! His Honour said that under the will the Church stood to benolit to tho extent of £ 1-3,397, and commented on the fact that non«i ol the children was physically strong" Some, . oven j with the legacy left under the will, would be una bio to maintain them- ! selves. His: Honour was of opinion that certain gifts to the Church oliould -stand, and that the increase to the widow should come out of the residue. Hr- further thought that each of the ten children should rcceivc i.'Boo in addition to the sums allowed under the will, and that. £'300, accumulated interest, should be divided among the children. An order was made that the . total cost should come out of the estate. A BREEZE IN COURT. WITNESS IIEFI'iSES TO ANSWER Qljli&'liONS. It is not often that witnesses oponly dely the presiding Magistrate, but. Joseph Angus, an elderly norue service man, stood on what ho considered his rights at Wellington on I'hursdav, and told Mr W. G. liidilell, S.M., tnat he would not answer questions put by anyone unless his grievance was attended to. This stupid scene occurrod during the hearing of a civil case in which Michael O'Connor sued Angus for £6 18s -Gd.

•'What is your name?" asked Mr A Dunn.—Private Joseph Angus, il you want to know. What branch of the Service are you in ?—I belong to the ambulance. You can sec that on my arm, so don't ask any more questions. Are you home service? —I don't know. Arc you going to tho front? —I don t know. Are you a married man ?—^o. Have you any dependants?— Lots, but before I answer any more questions you have to pay me £3, my ox- ! pcn.scs in coming down here. Mr Dunn endeavoured to proceed, but witness again insisted on immediate payment of £3. I His Worship: Answer the questions. Angus: I will answer no e.uestions j unless you pay me £3. Mr Dunn said that, witness had been granted conduct money, but he denied having received it. His "Worship ordered Angus to stand down, and to reapper at 2.15, when.he had cooled down. The ease was called in the afternoon, but Angus did not appear, and an order was mado that the amount should he paid off at the rate of 10s a fortnight. Half an hour later Angus turned iin "looking for them," as he said, but he came too late. SOLDIER'S PETITION FOR DIVORCE. A petition for divorce was hoard at the Auckland Suprowc Court on Thursday, before his Honour Mr Justice Cooper and a jury of twelve. The petitioner was William Henry Chappell, now of Christchurch, lately a member of the Expeditionary Force, and the respondent, Sarah Tyler Chappell. Mr H. H. Ostler appeared for petitioner, and Mr R. A. Singer for respondent. Tho petitioner's statement was to the effect that on May 3rd, 1901, he was married to respondent at Auckland. ' There were no children. He alleged that about May Ist, 1904, ro- . spondent deserted him. and had lived away from him ever since. -He asked, therefore, for a dissolution of tho niar- ; riage. ! The respondent denied that she had wilfully deserted petitioner without I just cause. Mr Ostler stated that after respon- ! dent left petitioner the latter had on j a number of occasions asked her to return, but she had refused to do so. In 1007 respondent gave birth to a child, which she registered as his, but whose parentage he denied. • On May 7th, inns, she gave birth to another child, which she registered as illegitimate. Petitioner, who has been wounded at the front, on into the box. was seized with a fit. to which, he lias been subjer-t since his return (savs- the "•Star"' 1 ), and the case was adjourned till mid-day. i When the Court resumed Mr Singer : announced that after consulting His client he was instructed to withdraw the answer, and to admit the marriage and desertion which had been alleged. ; Mr Singer handed into the Court a j written admission to this effect by the I respondent. whereupon his Honour | directed the iury to find that the reJ snondent had deserted npfitioner wit'>- • out inst cnn s e fo«- n period of upwards

!of fivo vear«. Th« iurv found a« j directed, and his Honour announced ■ a docrpp nisi would hp granted, to t be moved absolute in three months.