LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1136, 25 May 1911, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

♦ SUPREME COURT. FALSE PRETENCES-A BAD CASE. EIGHTEEN MONTHS IX GAOL. The hciring of Ihc charge ngninst Willisuii James lii'ililv* Hughes, nl obtainiiifr 0.'5 l Ills, by falsi- preliMices Irom an clilerly couple, John linpii.sl. Make and Elizabeth iSJalu\ of Karori, Wellington, «"ns resumed .vi-sicrilay mariiing at the Supreme Court iiy his ifoiiour, the Chief Justice (Sir lioheit Stoat). Mr. T. Nciivc represented thi! Crown, and Mr. E. V. KclJy appeared for the defentlanl'. The aecu.-ed gave evidence in his own behalf. Ho said that at the time he told the Hlakc.s of properly coming to him he had not: understood that he . possosswl no legal claim to the properly, except he were married anil had lawful issue. After a very brief retirement, the jury returned 11 verdict of guilty. His Honour characterised the ease as a very bad one, anil said that it was only because of the youth of the prisoner, and the fact that he had not previously been convicted, that he would impose a lenient sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment. ' DIVORCE CASES, RESPONDENT A SOLICITOR: In the afternoon his Honour the Chief Justice heard divorce, cases. Ellen Wiseman petitioned for dissolution of lier marriage with Ernest AViseman, formerly of Hokitika, solicitor, on the ground of desertion. . The parties were married at Kumara on October IG, 1893. One child wns born. The liusband, who is now in England, the petitioner thirteen years ago. Mr. F. E. Pctherick appeared for the petitioner. A decree nisi was granted with costs against tho respondent. Wife the Respondent. William Langford, of Wellington, sought dissolution of his marriage with Florence Truscott Langford on the ground of adultery with Noah Morgan. Mr. Pctherick appeared for the petitioner. The parties were married on November 16, 1902. Petitioner, in his evidence, said he and liis wife had parted beoauso of his protests against her alleged neglect of their home, and because of her conduct with other men. The specific, act which was the cause' of the proceedings was committed in September, 1910. His Honour granted a decree nisi with costs against the co-respondent on tho lowest scale. Habitually Drunk, Caroline Forrest Stapleton, of Wellington, applied for a divorce from Perciva Ernest Stapleton. Mr. Neilson appeared for the petitioner. The application was made on the grounds of adultery and habitual drunkenness. The evidence ot the wife showed that the parties were married in Christchurch in May, 1596. the respondent was now a storeman. He had been habitually drunk, and had ill-treated her. Evidence as to his conduct witli another woman in 1908 was also given. Ihe parties had been living apart lor tlie past two vears. - An order was made for a decree nisi; with costs against the respondent, the Wife to have the custody of the children until further notice. Publication Forbidden. Herbert Montague Rosenberg, of Manners Street, Wellington, petitioned for divorco from Ada Kosenberg. Mr. W. Perry appeared for the petitioner: The publication of the evidence and of details of the case was forbidden. Tho .respondent did not appear, and a decree iiisi was granted. SUPREME COURT FIXTURES. 'The,.list of Supreme Court fixtures for May and Juno is as follows:— May 25.—Harrison v. Benzie, claim for ',£350 for alleged loss on bargain, etc. Smart v. Levin. May '26—Hadficid v. Hadfield, divorce, wife's petition; Walsh v.-Fuller, claim for .£ll-1 10s. for alleged bodily damages; Simpson v. Cockayne, counterclaim for alleged breach of covenant. Taradale Town Board v. A.M.P. Socictv, originating summons. May 27"—Powick v. Heberley, originating summons. May 29— He Marlborough Bcewery Company, a petition to wind up. Angeiin "v. Antico, .£SOO damages for .alleged libel. ■ _ 3lay 30.—Mewhiuney v. Mewhinney, in divorce. Bonthorne v. Bockstrom, injunction. I May 31.—C'udby v. Joseph, claim for £"& 15s. 6d., damages for alleged bodily injuries. Reynolds v. the King, claim - for JE3OCO for dismissal. M'Kiniay v. Hill, Limited, claim for JUOO alleged damages to land, caused by excavation, or JJIOO and injunction. June I.—Murray v. tho Minister for Railways, claim for compensation. June 2.—Bate and Pike v. Wellington City, claim for compensation. June s.—Baillio v. Wellington Harbour Board, claim for .£2OOO damages in respect of the death of John P. Baillie, which occurred while he was working on the wharf. (Special jurv.) June G.—Rotter v. the Minister for Railways. June 7.—Clapham v. Onslow Enough Council. Waters v. Onslow Borough Council. Redstone v. Silverstn-am Land Co., claim for .£173 ltis. 5d., interest due under agreement. June 9.—Berry v. Wimsett, claim for possession of land and .£SO for incno profits. June 12—Easson v, Wellington Citv.claim for ,£ISOO damages for injuries to land.