LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1051, 14 February 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. SITTING IN CHAMBERS. DIFFICULTIES OF A LAYMAN. DIYORCE CASES. Tho difficulty in which a layman may fiud himself when ho takes up the perplexing task of defending n Supremo Court action was demonstrated at a Chamber sitting held before Mr. Juslieo Chapman yesterday morning when argument preliminary to tho hearing of the ease, Stephen Edward l'owrio v. Patrick John Suuivau,, was heard. The action was ono lor possession of a certain property at-Kilbirnio and t £s mesne prorits. Itr. K. 11. Williams appeared for plaintiff and defendant conuucted his own case. Another pbaso of tho case had already been before,-l)is i Honour the Chief. Justice who had dismissed it ill December last. On February i when counsel lor plaintiff appeared and asked that judgment should bo entered up his Honour allowed another, defonco to be filed.. This defence, ■ Mr. Williams argued, was no defence to tho action any more than the previous one had been. It contained no specific or even inferential denial of the facts alleged in tho statement of claim. Tho new statement of defence alleged that in January, 1903, plaintiff entered into an agreemeut whereby ho was .to build defendant a house under certain conditions: that a' mortgage of tho property to plaintiff w'as arranged on Slay 14, 1909, before' ho • had taken possession of the property on tho understanding tlwt plaintiff carried out the contract; that he subsequently refused to do so and assigned his interest in.tho placo to the C. and A. Odlin. Timber Company; that ' plaintiff made application to the Registrar of tho Supreme Court and the property was sold On Oct6bor 4, 1910. Defendant alleged that plaintiff's action was fraudulent'and 'illegal and that in the circumstances he was not entitled to possession of tho property. . v Mr. Williams argued that not nn allegation in tho statement of claim, was denied by.the statement of defence, and that the defence was not valid. He asked that it bo set aside. His Honour expressed tho opinion that tho whole thing was very vaguely worded. Tho question now was whether the statement of. dofenco disclosed any answer to the action. Tho defenco had obviously been drawn by an Unskilled hand.' Defendant pointed out that' he had en-tered-into'an agreement with plaintiff in 1899 to build a house. This agreement, ho urged, luid not been carried out nn to-the present day. Tho buildinghad not bocn completed. But for the pro-, mises of plaintiff he would • not have signed tho agreement: Tho property had boon, sold and he was seeking the titlo to tho property, which ho at present occupied. - ■ ... His Honour remarked that in this action defendant was not as he appeared to think seeking to pet the property back. It-seemed-to him that tho first thing defendant should, do should ho to take advico. about the matter, seeing ho ' could set asido tho transaction. ■Defendant: I can't afford advice. His Honour: It-is as easy.to afford ad-, vice as to afford litigatioh. Continuing, his Honour repeated that what ho had -to. dccido was whether the written'defenco disclosed any defenco to the' ac'.ion; Tho Court could only deal with tlio matter, as it saw it, and, his Honour said, ho could not see that this was a defence. Sullivan should take advico asi to'whether he could: set aside tho. transaction. The property had been . regularly sold and defendant had not obtained nn injunction to prevent the sale. The Court conld not sot aside. Iho Land Transfer Act, as it, would bo doing if it accented tho statement in question. In 'conclusion his Honour . said ho had decided that this dcfence was had. t This was all the Court could dccido at prc- '■ Costs, ss„ were allowed against defendant. '."I would adviso you to take advice .about tho matter and. ascertain your exact-position," .were his Honour's final'words, of advico to defendant. ; IN DIVORCE. "UNDEFENDED CASES. ' A sitting in- Divorco Svas held beforo Mr» Justice Chapman yesterday afternoon. , DOUBLE V. DOUBLE. Leonard Phillip Parker Douulo sought a dissolution of his marriage with EditlS Slary Double on the ground that on May' 10, 1910, a«d on. other days respondent had been guilty of misconduct with Jas.' Symons,. of Petone, butcher, and now of Johnsonville, • who was cited as co-respon-dent. ,

Petitioner, a railway porter, stated that ho was married at Wellington on November 9, 1905, and lived at Wellington and the Lower Ilutt. Ho had objected to his wife goins to the Opera House and to dancis with tho co-respondent and had remonstrated with her,'but she persisted, and said she intended,to do so. At length she went to Christchurch, and he hijd not .seen her since.

Francis B, Winney, driver, Lower Hut' who lived neit door to the parties cocerncd, said he had seen respondent and co-respondent at Double's houso both night and day when ho (Double) was away from home. In conversation with witness bymons told him that he and Mrs. Double had a signal to show when petitioner was out. If ho was in, tho front door was shut, but if he was out it was left wide open. His Honour thought tho evidence was sufficient. The important fact was thdt Double forbnde his wife association wit) Symons, and mado it clear that tho i son was that they were too familiar. If,' after a warning like'that, n woman ik N only disregarded her husband, but defied him, she at least brought .strong suspicion on herself. That suspicion was not sufficient-in itself, but when that state of affairs was known and it was proved, as ,ly the last witness, that corespondent was seen ct tile houso at least a-dozen times night nnd day when Double was away, the whole facts could be put together. A' decreo nisi, to bo made absolute in three months,, was granted, costs on the lowest scale being allowed against corespondent. -i)od sin joj pwnsddu p-iomu Mir tioner. LEE V. LEE. Georgo Lee, of Petone, carter, applied for -a dissolution of his marriage with Ellen Helena Charlotto Lee, on tlio ground of desertion. ' Evidence ■ was (liven by tho petitioner that ho wqs married at Akatarawa on August 21, 1893, nnd lived at Johnsonville,'Ohariu Valley, and Pcto'ne. Thoro was ono child,'born in 1897. In August,' 1903, his wifo left him without causo or warning. Ho made several attempts to find her,'nnd except for hearing that sho was in Palmerston in 190G, had heard nothing of her. He wrote to ralmerston, but could not find her. A decreo nisi wns granted, to be made nbsoluto in three; months. - Jfr. Wilford appeared for tho . petitioner. • . • DUNCAN . V. DUNCAN. Lavinia Duncan made application for tho cancellation of her marriage with Walter Watson Duncan, horse trainer, Wnnganui, on tho around of desertion. Mr. Wilford appeared for tho petitioner, who stated that she was married at Hawern on January 21, 1892, and after tho marriage they lived at Ilawcra, Woodville, and Ashhurst. There was one child, Ixjrn of the marriage. In 1895 her husband left her, and she had not heard or' seen him since, although she had advertised nnd written. John Kins Hansen, brother of tho petitioner, also gave evidence. A deorcc nisi was granted, to bo mado absolute after three months. HERON.V. nERON. 'An'application was mado by Mr. Wilford, on behalf of Elsio Mary Heron, for a dissolution of her marriago with Chas. Edward Heron, the ground set out being .habitual drunkenness and failure to supMary Heron stated that sho was tho wifo. of respondent. Sho was married on October 19, .903! at Gisborno, ind nftenvards lived in Wellington. Thero were no children. Respondent commenced drinking uftcr his marriage, nnd had been the subject of prohibition orders at

Gisborno and Wellington. )Io kept on drinking, however, and witness had to support him since 111? time of her,marriage as ho lind lost his work through driuk. 110 had only given her'.£s tho wliolo tiiuo they had been married. Julia A. O'Neill said sho had known petitioner for 2J years, during which time sho had-maintained herself. Respondent, sho taid, was always drunk. ' A decree nisi was granted, to be mado absolute after three months. '• MAXFIELD V. MAXFIELD. Ellen Maxfield sought 'a dissolution of her marriago with George Edgar Maxfield on tho ground of desertion. Tho parties were innrried at Hawera in January, 1899, and lived at Gisborne, Napier, Timaru, nntl Ashbnrton. Respondent had not beeu heard of sinco 1902. A jdecree nisi was granted. Mr. Wilfor petitioner. ESTALL V. ESTALL. Agues Wilson Estill sued for a dissolution of her marriage with Henry. Wm. Estall on tho ground of desertion, and stated that sho was married to respondent at Wellington on August 10, 1895.. There was ono child. Respondent had been license® of Barrett's Hotel, which ho left seven years ago. Whilst there his conduct had ljeon very bad.. nnd on ono occasion tho polico had had to handcuff him in his-room as he was mad with drink. - Ono day ho locked her in her room and-held n razor to. her throat. When, last heard of respondent was in Sydney. A decree nisi was granted, costs being allowed against respondent on tho lowest scale.- An order was mado that petitioner, 6hould have interim custody of the child. Mr. Hcrdman appeared for the petitioner.