SUPREME COURT.

Press, Volume LVI, Issue 16854, 7 June 1920, Page 5

SUPREME COURT.

DiTOKC". (Eoiors his Honour Mr Jw.ic-e Tn ilici follow in j undefended petitions for divorce, after evidenco was heard, *■' Honour granted a decree risi m l . " s'ar.cp, the dccrees to • !>o made a*■,three month*: —Autonette Ed'.th Coll/rs ( TTpham) v. Ilubeit S. Collvns. ors tfle | ® of habitual drunkenness. cruelty, and to maintain; Leonard 15. SaLke.d (Mr Ha u:an> v. Eva Isabel Salkeld. aauitery, Henrv Aisher I win? cited co-vcsr-oiidont. Deris V. Aisher (Mr Harden) v. »as. uy. Aisher. aduhc-ry; Mvr?. Jane - incrham) v. John Joseph Clrcc-ii. Thos. Mitchell (Mr Cuninghaii:) v. Alice Mitchell 2nd Roil. MeAlister, adaljery ; Amtuelins Harrison !Mr Alpers; Rkmk. x ", risen, habitual drunken:;r"-.:, « •- failure to maintain; Ju-is. (Mr A. T. Donnelly) v. AvUuir Er.ictt A'C-ourt, desertion: Ju:r.e3 Micnse* L-03ic. ; t-'* "VVcsto::) v. Marv Eveline Coard, cenOi-.--, David Taylor (Mr Curinghanv, v. Lucy i;iylor and Joseph Dons.! 1 -.Mr Xi ' te-rv; "William John Blunt 0 V-'fv-Elizabeth Blunt, desertion; T (Mr Twvnehnu) ~ Edward Cyril J/-'--" Isle?, adulter',"; John Harper (>i-" Catherine Harper ar.d Henry adultery: X:\ro- Morn? (Mr At iei=) • " " tin:- Joseph s.dnltery: John Jv ; a..» (Mr A leers) v. Ethel Mar E-vans and iheo<loro Neilsen, adultery; lls-non (Mr Thomas) v. Clement Whiteman, deswlion; L«rv Ai.on. (Mr A. T." Donnelly) v. Stewart acG-Jtlun Cassidv <Mv Alpers/, adnlte:v. In V 0 (ion of Edith. Lilian, AV«t (Mr M. J. son) v. .Tosech Alexander Wc■ t. on the- ;:rounc. of adultery* dtscieiou was held over the production of certificate of nia-r.as- a*, to-day's sittii:? oi the Court. , ■ Susan a ibsou (Mr F. S. ildifta) v Thomas Gibson, -.vas adjeurnea 10; '- e Induction of further ©videnc3. CIVIL SITTINGS. His Honour heard argument 0:1 the nonsuit psinta raised or, l-iiday by celcndaKi counsel, in the- iiction i,i whic;i Hugh .UcLeai; (.rrouhart, by his BT.:ardian, A-txandv-i Urouuarl (Mr Alpers, with him Mr lyiJ, c!aiu;«l i'lOt.'i) damuges irom tlie Asnbuitou High School Board cf Govcraora (Mr C. W. PcrnelH, :n rc-r|;ect i-i the iojs ji plaintiff's lel», cyo, the result oi an explosion whilst an experiment was beius conducted ni the school luboratory. Tlis juiy found lhat there had been ncgu-;,-cnco 011 the part of the Board, or its ecr'-ants, arid awai'ded plaimiff £'830 ts dama-rrss. :ir Puraell submitted that the Education Act, 1011, reduced the Board to the position of an administrative body. His Honour: You admit- that before that legislation was passed it wau not, an administrr.tivo body'.' ! Mr Piu-r.ell: Yes; the Board had lull l.chargo of the school, bi:i, the IDld Act altered its status entirely. He cited Section 13 oi the Act of 1878, constituting tho .Board, to 6how tho wide powers given the Board, His Honour thought that Scction -'2 of the I9K Act continued tho control by tho Board. Mr Purncll anbniitteu thai tho Board's control was only nominal; tho Minister of Education now esercised powers that the Board cxercised prior to tho coming into operation of the Fclieir.o of control under tho 11)11 Act. Ilia Honour, after looking through tho sohemo of control, said that it seemed that the Board was in the sajremo position, and tiie scheme insisted on tho Board's control. Mr Purncll said that tho scheme defined tho ooureo of study, and tho powers of the principal of the school —powers previously hold by tho Board. There was nothing left for the Board to do. Ilia Honour said that the Board had to eeo that tho course of study was carried out. I The point at issue was: Was Mr Belshaw, when teaching in that chemistry room, a sorvant of tho Board? Did counsel contend that tho legislation of 1914 made Mr Belshaw no longer a servant of the Board? Mr Purnoll said that- ho rolied on tho case, the District of Auckland Hospital and Charitable Aid Board v. Lovett. Belshaw i v.'aa a servant of the Board in a certain way, | but not so as to mako the Board rcsponsi- ; hie for hi 3 actions.

His Honour said that the ease cited laid down that a surgeon engaged by a Hospital Board, and given full control in respcct of tho patients, was not a servant of the Board, tho Board caying to patients: "You com® into the hospital, and wo will g-apply a. man to do tho work for you." iir Purnell submitted that a science master was in the samo poaition as a surgeon; from the necossity oi tho case, tho Board could not interfere with the science master in tho details of his work. Tho Board could not interfere with him, as ho was a professional man, doing expert work, and if he made a mistake the Board was not responsible. Tho limitation of tho Board's powers strengthened his argument. Counsel further submitted that tho plaintiff, being a free place pupil, no contractual relationship existed between the parties; the Board cou'd not refuse to take plaintiff as a_ pupil. Ho cited 'i'ozoland against tho Guardians of tho Poor of the West Ham Union in support of the submission, that tbs Board acted ministerially.

Mr Alpcrs submitted that cour.sel had misconstrued the scope of tho Education Act, 1914, and tho meaning- of tho regulations thereunder. When tho Staia introduced tho fiv-o«t>laco system it stood in loco parentis to the tree placo pupil. Tho 191-1 Act did not repeal any of the special Acts relating to High School Boards of Govornors —tlioso Acts were loft almost intact. _ Th? Act jirovided for tin-. schem-o being drawn up by tiio Board of Govornors, but if they failed to do 00, tlio Department provided it. Tho 191-1 Act shored up and amplified tho powers of tho Boards, and instead of being subversive of tho powers of the local authority it preserved those powers, and interfered with them only to tho extent of securing uniformity in respect of tho instruction to be given at secondary schools. Counsel replied to tho submission that tho Ash-burt-on Board was acting ministerially by citing the Christchurch Firs Board v. Kobinso'n (31, New Zealand Law Reports, 1912). The Ccurt3 differentiated between men whose duties, if interfered with by laymen, might endanger liumau life—such oa surgeons and pilots—and others whose duties if interfered with by laymen would not endanger human life. If tho masters at the Ashburton High School were not under the control _of the Board, then they were members of tho New Zealand public service: but they wero not psspointed by tho Public Sen-ice Commissioners.

Mr Purnell submitted that the Board did not draw up tho scheme of control. His Honour said that li« did not bava much doubt about the matter, but as it v.-as of some importance he would givo his opinion ir. writing. Tho Court adjourned till 10.30 a.in. to-day.