SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 984, 26 November 1910, Page 13

SUPREME COURT.

PETITIONS FOR DIVORCE. DECREES GRANTED. Seven undefended divorce suits were heard by tho Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday morning. Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared for-the petitioners in the first six cases. John Patrick Casey petitioned for dissolution of his marriage with Mary Ann Casey (nee Briggs), on tho ground of her alleged misconduct with Alexander Brown (co-respondent, labourer, of Christchurch. The marriage took place in November, 1905,. and there was one child, now dead. The co-respondent's solicitors had admiit-ed the wrongdoing, and forwarded £50 for damages. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after- three months, unless cause is shown to tho contrary; costs against cor-respondent on tho lowest scale.

. Elizabeth Elliott Blake, in petitioning for divorce from Charles Sago Blake* actor,.,on the ground of desertion, said they were married at AVangamii,. and had hyjKl at Sydney 'and Wellington, β-e letf her m . October, 1804. She fought there was another woman in tho case. He returned to Now Zealand about four years ago, and she then wrote to him ottering to live with him again, but he' declined.. She had had no money from him sinco ho left her, Due no had given.their son, who was now at school, 2s. 6d. ■ That was last Saturday, when respondent was in'■ Wellington. Corroborative evidence was given, and a decree nisi was granted with.temporary custody of the child. Ada Eleanor Elizabeth Bacon, who' •ft ~? r - n of her marriage with Alfred Boyco Bacon, on the ground of Ins misconduct,-said "they were married at Lyttelton on December'-2i!, 1904 arid had lived there and in Wellington:Ihey had four children. , Respondent' nacl admitted his misconduct. Charles Henry Hills, father of the petitioner, also gave evidence. A decree nisi was granted, with.interim custody of the children. -■.■■.-. j

James Alfred Button asked for divorce from -his, wife, Lily Button, fhonias Killer, of Wellington-- orjrineer, was joined as co-respondent.- The marriage took place- on Juii'e 22, 1904' at Wawera and.tho lmsband-and wife lived at Wellington,, Hutt, "'and-elsewhere. Ihey had no children. ' Petitioner said •tii? fl ad'admitted her' misconduct witn tho co-respondent,- and ho had onco forgiven her,: but. she had 'again offended, and now wished for divorce A letter signed by her was produced to prove this.' ,A- decree nisi was "ranted on the"usual terms. .'. " ■' ■/ t \ o \s r ,?. T ™' - sult > - Richard- : Bate.rnan, of: Wellington, pork butcher, v. i'lora Bateman and' Gerald Deo '(co-re-spondent), tho petitioner stated that they wore Married at Sydney on 'August 7 1900, and had lived'at Sydney and. Wellington, and' had three children. After, his. wife went ■ away with Dee, petitioner found her in the Hospital set. her up in business, and paid 1%. - s ]i° -went .away 'again, in iJUS, and. he did not know where she was now. She had admitted her misconduct with Deo. :: After- hearing- other evidence, his Honour granted a decree nisi, with costs against, co-respondent, and stated, that petitioner was' entitled custody of tho children. - : ;■ • Ihp caso'.'of, Alice Garrett, of Feilding, v; William Garrett, : canvasser, \vas heard •in . camera.: A.- decree nisi was granted on"'tho kround of desertion. Jessio.Agnesßadford petitioned for divorce.from.John,William Radford, on the. .groand.-ofiiihis-:tmisconduc4)i.i Tho parties afr'Wellir/fiton on June 30,4906, aiid had lived Hero since. Ihey liad; no children. Evidence was given' by the. petitioner and by her sister, Mrs. Rose Florence Perham. A decree nisi was granted, with costs against ■ the ■ respondent (who did not defend the caso). Mr. A. Dunn appeared for tho petitioner. ■ A PROMISSORY NOTE. ■•.■-:•' CLAlil-FOR £25. ■' ; A claim on a promissory note heard by tho Chief Justice- (Sir Robert Stout) yesterday was complicated by a question relating to patent'.rights. The parties were Morgan anil Co., Ltd., of Daunevirke, and plaintiffs, represented by Mr. A. W. Blair,'and "Harry W.; Davies, defendant, represented by Mr.' A. Gray. The claim was for £25 alleged to be due on a promissory note. ■'■'..■' In.opening the case,' Mr.' Gray said that a man named Lester, who was engaged in installing acetylene gas plants, induced the defendant, who is a plumber; at Palmerston North, to make some generations from a.model. In consequence of' something that was said by-other plumbers, Davies and Letter went to Dannevirko and called on the plaintiff company. '-There they'were: told by. tho company's representative that the. plaintiffs' held tlio patent rights of the generator. which Davies, at the instance-'of Lester, was manufacturing. Davies bad 13 orders ■to fill, aiid the plaintiffs asked for £25 as royalty oii.these. An arrangement on those lines was come to, and Daviea gave tho promissory note for £25, which was the subject of .'the action, payable in three months. Davies proceeded 'toimako the machines, but bo soon learnt that there was - some difference between them and the machines patented by one. Burton, who had assigned his patent to tho plaintiff. He wrote ,to the- : plaintiff, pointing this rat, and received no reply. After the promissory note fell due, the plaintiffs issued a. summons. The defence was that the two designs were- quite- different, and that there had been misrepresentation on tho part of the' plain-' tiffs. Mr. Blair: We say they are the same patent. There- is a slight error in the specifications. That is all. • After, hearing evidence, and examining models, which were produced iii court, his Honour reserved his decision.