THE COURTS.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20108, 11 December 1930, Page 6

THE COURTS.

SUPREME COURT.

WEDNESDAY (Before Mr Justice Adams.) DIVORCE PETITION DISMISSED. A petition for divorce on the ground that a verbal agreement of separation had been made between husband and wife wm beard when Eileen Muriel Gladys Helen Kingsbury petitioned for divorce from her husband, Stanley Lester Kingsbury. Mr H. 0. D. van Asch) apposrod for petitioner, and Air U. ©• Thomas for respondent. Mr Tan Aach explained tbat tlie P a * tie * ■wore married at Rangiora in 1925, and lijed together on a farm at Hanmer until they separated in May, 1927. He claimed that for soma months before the separation there had been differences between them. In. May. 1927, they had been separated by verbal agreement. In July, 1927, respondent had visited his wife and asked for a zeconciliation. Since then, except for a letter in August, respondent had taken no interest in petitioner and had failed to maintain her. Petitioner gave evidence regarding quarrels with ' respondent for two years before they parted, and also regarding the details of the parting and of the meeting in July. Under cross-examination by Mr Thomas, petitioner outlined the agreement made with her husband, and also how she had lived sines the separation. Stanley Lester Kingsbury described the events leading up to his departure in May, 1927, and the interview with his wife in July. He had pleaded with her, he said, to come with him then to a married couple's position he had been offered on a farm, but she had definitely refused and had held to her decision when he had written to her In August. .Nothing had been said about maintenance, except for the payment of his insurance premiums which he undertook to keep up. He was perfectly ready still to take her back. He thought that she had been solely influenced in her decision by her mother. Ho denied that there had been quarrels before May, 1927, and asserted that when he had returned in August his wife had received him kindly until she consulted with her mother. His Honour said he was not satisfied that petitioner had proved her case. She rested her whole case on the alleged agreement to separate, and the onus of proof of the existence of such an agreement was on petitioner. Having heard the evidence he was not satisfied that there had been any separation, by consent. He dismissed the petition, therefore, ordering the costs, on the lowest scale, to be paid by respondent. RESERVED JUDGMENT. Reserved judgment was given on Bn originating summons for an order determining a question concerning the true construction of the will of Francis Smedley Taylor, a retired farmer, formerly of Waipara, and late of Fendalton. The suit was brought by Ernest Smedley Taylor, trustee of the estate (Mr M. J. Oresson), and was defended by Joseph Charles Taylor Baker (Mr A. T. Donnelly), nephew of the testator, and the child* ren (Mr 0. S. Thomas) of Sarah Ann Bacon, niece of testator. The question for decision was whether the residuary estate of the testator was to - be divided among the child or grandchildren of testator's late sister Sarah, or among the children of the testator's late niece, Sarah Ann Bacon, nee Baker. After setting aeide £4OOO for the benefit of testator's nephew, Charles Taylor Baker, the will directed that the residue should be divided, one part to go to the children of testator's late brother, Joseph Taylor, and the other half to he divided ' 'among such of the children of my late sister, Sarah Ann Baker, of Crytes in Devonshire, England, as shall have attained or shall attain the age of 21 years, etc." "The question arises in this way," says the judgment. "The testator had a sister named Sarah whose married name was Baker, and a niece named Sarah Ann, who was a daughter of the sister Sarah. The sister lived at Crich (not Crytes, if there be a place of that name), in Derbyshire until her death in 1897. There is no evidence that she and the testator ever corresponded." Recapitulating the evidence his Honour said It had been sworn that the niece corresponded with testator and that her children wrote to him on more than one occasion. In an earlier will testator had left a legacy to the children of his niece, describing them in specific terms. "The admissible evidence satisfies me that the persons designated by the testator are the children of his niece, Sarah Ann," said his Honour. "The alternative to this would, in my opinion, be to hold that the description could not apply to either claimant. The one-half of the residuary estate is to be divided among the children of the testator's Sarah Ann Bacon. This applies also to the one-half share of £4OOO (which half r«,to go to the disputed legatee). The difnc«'ty has arisen from the terms of the will and the costs of all parties will be taxed and paid out of the residue."

MAGISTERIAL. WEDNESDAY. (Before Mr H. A. young l , S.M.) Frank Stanley Radburnd, aged 36, a labourer, living at 239 Papanui road, was charged -with the theft, on November 9th, at _Hawarden, of 24 tiiis of tobacco, 2 shirts, and one pair of stockings, of a total value P ro P ert y of the New Zealand Farmera Co-op., Ltd., and waß remanded, until December 18th. Bail was allowed in -'self £SO and one surety of £SO.