THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17155, 26 May 1921, Page 4

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT. CIVIL SITTINGS. . (Be-'oro his Honour Mr Justice Herdman.) CLAIM FOR POSSESSION. Further evidence was heard in the claim for possession by Augustus FloranoeNew Bri-Tiion, trustee under the will of D. \\, Hamilton (Mr A. T. Donnelly) from Leonard Won Hadfield (Mr J. H. Upham), of .the farru known as The Giange, on the river Avon at Burwood. .. H E. Cook, called by Mr Donnelly, stated that a fair rent for the farm (25 acres) in 1916, was £i per acre. W E. Simes. called by Mr Upham, stated that' a fair rent in 1916 was £2 13s per acre. ~ , ~-■ T TV. Rowe, solicitor, gave evidence regard in" a. previous lessee of the farm in 1912 who paid £6O per annum rent, but pave it up at the end of three or four months because he could not make it pay. ilr Upham submitted that the plaintiff had not produced one witness to show that anv of the small farms in the vicinity were rented in 1916 at a higher rental than that paid by defendant for the farm in disputo in the same year. . Mr Donnelly submitted that at the crucial time (191(5) a better rent than that paid by defendant was actually obtained for the piece of land in dispute, and was obtained by defendant himself; defendant now said, through his counsel, that that rent was not a reasonable rent, because defendant had treated his cousin, G. Hadfield, shabbily. Counsel commented on the fact that defendant was not called to give evidence in the His Honour, m giving judgment for plaintiff, said tiiat he had come to the conclusion taking into consideration all the evidence, and particularly certain facts relative to the conduct of ihe defendant, that the lent lescrved was substantially inadeo.ua.te. The starting point in the case was the defendant's negotiations with the lifo tenant for th-i re-lease; the life tenant was'dead, and they were not able to get his evidence as to whether the rent agreed to in the kase was the best obtainable; the rental reserved was £65 per annum; whilst these negotiations were proceeding defendant hirns.>a was negotiating with two young men to lease the "place to them for £lO4 per annum, afterwards £IOO per annum. Whether defendant told the life tenant about this, his Honour was not able to say; probably he concealed it from the life tenant. It was unfortunate that the defendant ' had refrained- from giving' evidence in the case; lie (defendant) threw no light on this transaction; the Court unfortunately did not have the advantage of defendant's testimony as to the carrying capacity and value of the land. For the purposes of the case his Honour said that ho must assume that defendant acted honestly when he endeavoured to get £lO4 from the returned soldier and his companion; thai, being the case, the defendant, while negotiating with the life tenant, believed that the fair rental to be obtained for the property was a rental equal to £2 per week. His Honour then reviewed the evidencs as to the rental value given bv the witnesses for both sides, and said that ho was forced to the conclusion that the rental of £65 per annum was substantially inadequate. His Honour, in, his judgment, declared the lease of April 25th, 1911, to bo invalid and void, as against the plaintiff, and that the defendant had no estate or interest in the land; he decreed that plaintiff should have possession of the land. Costs were- fixed on the lowest scale, and his Honour certified for second day, -fixing the fee at £lO 10s. •

IN DIVORCE. 1 Mary Ellen Forscutt (Mr F. D. Sargent) petitioned for a divorce from Henry Fuller Forscutt, on the grounds of desertion and of failure to maintain. The petition was undefended. After hearing evidence, his Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. The Court adjourned till 10 a.m. to-day.

MAGISTERIAL.

(Before Messrs J. H. Seager and H. Langford, J.P.'s.) • TERRITORIAL'S NEGLIGENCE. Joseph Charles Archbold was. charged with negligently losing a military kit, .valued at £3 7s Sd, issued to him.as a member of the Defence Force.'- Defendant waa ordered to refund the sum of £3 7s 3d within two inonths.< REMANDED. Leonard Augustus Mousley was charged with the theft of goods valued at i' 6 12s 6d from a. dwelling-hoiise" at Auckland. On tho appliciition of. Inspector Hendry, accused waa remanded till June 2nd, to apr pear at Auckland. ADMITTED TO PROBATION'.

Robert Hector Butcher, 20 years of age (M.r E. W. White), pleaded guilty to a charge of'theft of the sum of £1 16s from .T. L. Hewitt, at Addington, on February 10th.

Counsel said that the accused waa at present on probation on account of another offence. He asked that a further chancei be given the sccused. The Bench allowed the present terms of probation to remain in force. S.P.CA. PROSECUTIONS.

The Society for tlie Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Mr W. J. Hunter) proceeded against Harry Masters for alleged cruelty to two horses at New Brighton. Dufendant did not appear, and the case was adjourned for a weeK. Mr Hunter said that if defendant did not appear then a warrant for hiß arrest would be applied for. Albert Hanvood was also proceeded against by the Society for allowing a gelding to be worked in yoke while suffering from sore shoulders, l and an injured pastern joint. Defendant was fined £1 and costs. • DISTURBANCE AT BECKENHAM. .' Michael John O'Connor (Mr W. F. Tracy) pleaded not guilty to causing a disturbance a* the Beckenham HaE on May 9th, and assaulting Reginald Henry ■Stillwell. Defendant was fined £2 and costs on the charge of creating a disturbance, and on the charge of assault he was convicted and discharged. BREACH OF ARMS ACT. ,

Frederick Ashby was charged with aibreach of the Arms Act, in y that, not being a licensed dealer, he procured four rifles; also that he remained in possession of unregistered firearms for a longer period than a month. Defendant was convicted and fined 10s on each charge.

(Before Mr' S. E. McCarthy, S.M.) ADMITTED TO PROBATION. Robert John Blair (Mr R. A. Cuthbert] was charged with, botwean May Ist and 11th stealing linen and underclothing, valued at £9 12s, from the Queen Mary Hospatal, Hanmer Springs. * .. Counsel lor the accused asked that he be deal* with leniently. Accused was _35 years of age, and had had an unblemished record up till now. He was. suffering from neurasthenia as the result of his war service and counsel asked his Worship, sho-uld he decide to admit the man to probation, to recommend that he be reinstated at the hostile Magistrate said! that he could see the accused was .in need of W™"- =« would be fined £lO, in default three months imprisonment, and he would recommond that he be re-employed by the hospital authontißS' CIVIL BUSINESS. GeoTce William Prebble (Mr Daew) claimed £IOO from 6amuel John Miles and Mary Miles *Mr Thomas), damages alleged to have been Wained by pWntiß by reason o? the defendants' negligently and unsfairully driving a motor-cycle and sidecar, and colliding with, plaintiff, who was ndrag a bicycle. Plaintiff received a. broken arm and an injury to the head, and he claimed damages for medical expenses, loss of earnings, and Tepaira to his bicycle. Defendants counter-claimed for the amount of £lO9 4s, for damages to motor-cycle and tide-car, and injuries sustained by . Mary Ji The Magistrate reserved his decision, intimating that he would view the site of tlie accident.

IN OTHER PLACES.

TEN TEARS' IMPRISONMENT. /PBKS9 ASSOCIATION TEJiGRAM.) AUCKLAND, May 25. At the Supreme Court, David Souder was fcund guilty cf the rape of a young child and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment, UiU spared a flogging on account of h* age," 52. ■ AUCKLAND SESSIONS. fPEESS ASSOCIATION TELEGBAM.) V AUCKLAND, May 25 At the Supreme Court, sentences to reformative treatment were nnpee*. as fclows: -John Gibson, breaking and entering at Maungaturoto, not exceedmg five years; ClwKlf Alexander Baal Morten, assault,not exceeding box months; James Joseph Mailory Rosa. tiHt, six months; 'Brio R. Marcroff theft Cambridge, not exceeding three years; Samuel M. Frank, indecent assault, not exoeeddng three years. Term of probation as ioKows:—Jess:e Meeske, theft, five years, with a bond for tood behaviour for two yeara; May Gibson 2nd John Gibson, breakin-g and entering, three years; Donald Peter MoGasMll, assault, three years; Charles Tucker, theft from the person, three years; John Brfttain, false pretences, three years; Trevor Napier Peai», theft from, bis employers, three years;

Thomas- Edward -Blong, theft cf lodge funds, three yeers; Joseph Jesse Clark, theft and faitare -to account for moneys, five years j Ngatiau Nitio, breaking, and- entering and theft at Te Awaniutu, two years; Manuel Valvar, indecent assault on a male, five yeairs; Margaret Metcalfa, attempted arson at the- Door of Hope Instituitian.. four years. Freda Hutchinson, ringleader in the Door of Hope affair, was' comredtted to a receiving home. In many-oases restitution was ordered, also payment of costs of the prosecution.

THE DIVORCE DAW AND DESERTION. {PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.) WELLINGTON, May 25. The recently amended legislation respecting the jjianting of a divorce provides that desertion for a continuous period of, three years and upwards is ample and reasonable ground for the making of a petition for dissolution of marriage. The point cropped up at the Divorce Court to-day as to what was continuous desertion in the case of a soldier who left the Dominion before the period of three years' desertion was completed. In making his petition, Albert Arthur Biddle said he married Sarah Maria Piddle in May, 1915, but about six months later she commenced drinking, and left home on several occasions. She finally left the petitioner in 1916, since when he had seen her twice, but she had refused to go back to her home. The petitioner went into camp in 1917. : While he was in camp she instituted, but did not proceed with, an, actios for maintenance. ~,', , ~ Hi 3 Honour said it was doubtful jwhether the wife had: deserted the petitioner for a period of three years, as was required by the Act, as the petitioner left th© country two years after the respondent deserted him. The wife certainly could not have followed her husband to the war. There was a period of well over three years' desertion, but that period was not continuous. ■ His Honour said he was not at all satisfied in his mind as to the point,- and •he would therefore look into the question more fully before giving his decision. - No doubt there had been •'desertion, but perhaps the_ tioner would have to wait ■ a\ .little longer, for his divorce.