LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 963, 2 November 1910, Page 4

LAW REPORTS.

■ SUPREME COURT. ; DIVORCE. CASE., ' : JNTJSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. '/ divorce casewhich was before Mr. ?r; tioe .Cooper- yesterday was -described by him as. tho first "of its kind in New Zealand., The proceedings arose from a motion by the Solicitor-General to reverse a decree nisi. The Court,on March 19, 1910, oil-the petition of William Jobson, tlie respondent being Edith Liliau Jobson, and the co-respondent James Athol Bailie, 'granted' a'decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage. ' Prior to the hearing of a motion to make the decree absolute, Mr. Young, counsel; for tho respondent, communicated with the Solicitor-General, who, as a result, in- ; terviowed the respondent, and was informed by her 1 that'she had-met . the '-"petitioner' in. Gisborne in . May, 1910,' and that they had lived: together , at the Parkville'Private'Hotel; Wanganui, and the Columbia 5 Hotel, Wellington. In yesterday's .proceedings, the Soli-citor-General (Mr. J. W. Saimond) appeared in person, Mr. T. Young ap-' peared for the respondent, and the petitioner was not represented. ■ Mr. SalmoiSd' stafed" that " the ground' of the application, for the Reversal of the decree nisi was condonation by the petitioner of the vmisconduct of his Wife, the parties having since the issue of the decree nisi -resumed their former' matrimonial relations. Counsel .pro-,-ceeded to deal with the point, and to ask for an order reversing the decree and dismissing tho petition; Ho did not allege collusion between the parties, butthe admitted, condonation by., petitionpr-'of - his wife's -misconduct-was a material fact which was not before the Court when the decree nisi was granted/ and was therefore, under tion 3<Jof the Matrimonial Causes Act, a groiind for the intervention of .the Solicitbr-General. jCp.unsel quoted cases to show,*tjiat?the matter .was not affected by.'tho circumstance-'that the resumption of v matrimonial- relations did not ; take place until after the decree Bisi was granted. - -v His Honour remarked, that .the matrimonial rel.'.tions between the parties had been nlore regular since the decree 'nisi thad-.before, t ' They., were .married , in June, 1903, and'their first child was'i torn ia October. 1903. In 1905, "a maintenance order for 13s. a week?,'.was:: mado;by the - magistrate -at Gisborne, on the wife's application; but by consent, on tlio ground of- desertion without'"'wasonable cause.' After this' petitioner had occasional intercourse with respondent, 'and'-' two -more -chil-. dren were born, and, two further maintenance orders were made. Payments had been regularly made under all these orders; The parties had separated by mutual consent before-the birth of tho first child, and that agreement had-never; been put an end to. They had never had any married life- in the ordinary sense. ; Mr. Young, in opposing the Solici-tor-General-s - application, said he did not propose at the present stage to offer any argument on the motion to have the decreo..-.made . absolute,,.. The parties had told him that they did not intend -to ' live; together, and-. the respondent 1 had jnforme.d'-'Kinv-.that she. would be married again; and would; like; to-be separated from" the petitioner, if Eheicould havej2j.pp_gr .maintenance—, which she had not yet" had—and the Custody of one child. Counsel quoted authorities against ~ the, .. . Solicitor-. General's, - '■. His Honour said that the petitioner appeared to have a remarkable domination over his wife. , His conduct-, tor wards her,:.'iii, .leaving '■ her''"without money to pay 'fof' riiirsihg'aiid in other' ways must bo regarded as partly the cause of her misconduct. ; Mr. .' Young-- pr-bduced a.'lefter and a .telegram within, the last two. days from' the.''respondent "stating, that tho desired to .'have 1 the decree made absolute. - . Mr. Saimond said that the respond-' ent,, on hearing that these proceedings we're' to..'bo taken; wrote to' the' Crown Law Office and expressed gratitude. On .the" othefth'and iiEft&a true' that afterwards in a brief note she had said that a reconciliation was > impossible - and Quit she wished the divorce to go on. The influence of her husband probably had a good deal to do with these vacillations. ... . - 1 lii reply to his Honour counsel stated that the parties were now living together at.--Gisbome. .- " His Honour said he tvould assume that She; now decided to live apart from her ihusband. Tho question he had to set-. tle : 'was;.,one. of- importance,, and the case was 'ihe first'bf its kind in New" Zealand. He. would-.take time to look.) into tbe':'*JQlthoritieS.:'',Ho did not want l to prejudice the question of making the depree, absolute if he came to the con-. elusion.that'.-the Solicitor-General's applicationought to; bo refused/ but no Court would make a decree absolute if Ithe parties wero living as husband and wife, or were even having casual intercourse. In such cases the Court' ought to keep up at least tho semblance of rthe marriage, bond, lest it should, he?,encouraging immorality. If the Court could not make tho decree absolute, the parties would remain man and wife, and the decree nisi would be merely "a'.brutum fulmen, in which case . he'thought it ought to bo set aside. Mr. Saimond submitted that if the decree nisi .were .not.-made absolute, itshould bo reversed. His Honour said jthat was what he thought. He would give his decision on Friday morning., ; .. .. KARORI COMPENSATION CASE. t: NON-SUIT ASKED FOE. - Questions arising out of a claim against the Karori Borough Council' for, compensation under the Public Works Act were argued at a Banco sitting of the Supremo Court..yester-_, day. Mr. Justice Chapman sat as" president of the Compensation Court which has been set up for the case, andthe. Chief Justice (Sir Eobert Stout), and Mr. Justice Cooper sat with him fori joint consideration of the law points raised; ' ■_ Mr. Wi H.. D.v Sell appeared for-the. claimant,'-Mrs. E; O.- Cooper, and the respondent council was represented by Mr. H. F. Johnston and Mr. A. de B. Brandon, jun. Mr. Johnston asked for a non-suit on tho'ground that tho claim had not been made within the time limit proscribed by the Act. The, Chief Justice:., Have they got five l years or only one? " Mr. Johnston: I .don't, quite know. If they havo only one year, they have no chance. If they havo fivo years they may have a possible chance. Mr. Johnston went on to say . that tho claim was for'£4so and was solely in respect of strips of land at Donald Street and Cooper Street, Karori, dedicated, in terms; of:Section 117 of tho; Public Works Act, upon the sub-divi- : sion of a property,owned by,the claimant. The plan for tho sub-division was mado in January, 1903, and approved by the claimant, and counsol submitted that the "animus dedicandi" (intention to dedicate) was made manifest at that time. •: Mr. Justice Cooper said he had held in another case tliat'dedication was not complete until acceptance by tho local authority. . Mr. Justice Chapman said there must he acceptance in common law. Mr. Johnston said Mr. Justice Edwards had held_.tli.at there need not..bc ESceDtaiico in New Zealand.

;l,.:;The.:Ohief Justice-.said/the Po.urt of Appeal had hold the contrary in "the Wailiato case. , ~.Mr,. Johnston went ou to say that all cpuditioijs relating" #o'Vthe 'laying-off mid formation of the roads connected • ■with'-tlitrcase -were-settled-and approved by tlie council in 1903, and. nothing •further "had since, been required of the 1 flairnants, although - tho; present requirements of tho council in regard to liiotalling,'channelling,' 'etcr,''\V6ro greater than they wero in 1903. Argument was: .unfinished. :whon:_ the Court adjourned until to-day.