LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1289, 18 November 1911, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. DIVERSE LIST OF CAUSES. THE ALCOHOL MAN. OTHER CASES OF INTEREST. Robert Reginald Brice. a young map, who had pleaded guilty iu tho Magistrate's Court on Wednesday to having forged (at Wellington, on September £1), tho name of R. Davis to n cheque .''or and uttered tho ehequo to Charles Arthur Harrison; and with having (at Picton, on April 27) forged tho namo of Daniel Loddcir to a clioque for -Cl 5, and uttered tho samo to John J. Campbell, waa brought bofore tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout)- for eentenco yesterday morning.

Mr. T. M. Wilford, who appeared for the prisoner, pnt in a ploa. for leniency. Brice, he said, was an engineer by trade and until a few months ago; had borno a good character. Ho was now 28 years of ago. Ho had got out of employment and had gone over to Nelson, where he had commenced to drink. Crimo followed. Counsel suggested that tho prisoner should be admitted to probation.

His Honour remarked that, if these were tho only charges against the prisoner, he might have given him probation, bnt ho found that there were othor things, and it was.impossible to disregard rules which had been laid down by other judges. It was a rare thing for probation to be given in cases of forgery, and, in this case, certain other offences precluded it absolutely.

Mr. Wilford then suggested that the off ences: might bo treated as one series. Prisoner had been drinking-for the. whole six months, covered by' the;, cases, and the law might bb stretched. ■

His Honour. replied that he was just as anxious as Mr. Wilford to save young men, but tho law was not to -be stretched to the breaking point. If tho prisoner had been drinking for six months he would reqniro wnie time to get the alcoholic effect out of his system. Alcohol was a poison ami the highest doctors recognised that that was so. Wo had not come to that belief yet, but wo would have to do so if tho race was! to be preserved.

Mr. Wilford: It is a pity to send him to gaol if he's been poisoned,: your Honour. ■ ; "

His Honour: I proposo to send him to a place where he can get the alcohol out of his blood. You have said that could bo said, and I have been impressed by what you havo said, but I am not tho law-giver— I can only; carry out the law. He must be sent to- Roto I?oa Island for twelve months. Ihope that the magistrate will tako the same view, and treat this as punishment for tie other offences. I ask the prisoner never to take any liquor again. Drink has been the downfall of hundreds in the commnnity; not a month passes in my judicial experience without some young people foiling through drink!'

MERELY FLOCKMILL AND DAM. LEAVE AND LICENSE. A dispnte between neighbouring property owners in the Waiwotu district was straightened out by a reserved decision of the Chief Justice (Sir, Robert' Stout) in tho Supreme, Court yesterday. The parties to tho action were Eleanor Thorns, plaintiff, and Edith Dorothy; Ellis and John Ellis, defendants. The plaintiff (Eleanor Thorns) is the owner of land through which tho Waiiwetu Stream rnns, and the defendants (Mr. and Mrs. Ellis) own land further down the stream. : On this they have erected a dam, and established a uockmill, which is oporated by the water. Mrs. Thorns claimed that, by reason of tho tltthiiilirig of the stream, a . considerable portion, of her laud has been linundated, and erosion of tho banks has taken place. She therefore claimed .£SOO damages, and also an injunction to restrain Mr. and Mrs. Ellis from causing further damage. " Defendants denied that damago had been caused by their dam to Mrs. Thoms's property, and alleged that the erection of the dam was by tho express leave and license of Mrs. Thorns, who hud acquiesced in its erection, and had consequently lost her right to claim. It was decided to take the question of leavo and license first, as this might possibly decide tho whole action. Evidence on both sides was called on this point, and argument by .counsel followed. In giving judgment yesterday, his Honour said :--"Tho leave and license relied on is that' in consideration of the defendants raising a small bridge on the plaintiff's land and erecting a small wall the plaintiff gave, permission to the defendants' to raise the water in the stream .opposite-.the plaintiff's Jand by .20 inches. The defendants' .predecossor in title had erected a dam in tho stream to get waterpower for machinery that had been placed on and. alongside the stream. At the time, that the water had been raised about 10 inches the defendant, J. E. Ellis, explained to tho plaintiff that the power was insufficient, and that he had been advised to raiso the water 18 inches, and he Risked permission to raiso it 20 inches. Tho plaintiff agreed, on tho defendant Agreeing to raise tho small bridge that covered the stream on her land and put in a small wall or stop-bank to protect part of her land. This work was done )y tho plaintiff's son, who was engaged by the defendant to do the work, and who ■>vas paid therefor. After this, at considerable expense,, the water was raised. This took place in 1898. No objection was then taken, or for some years afterwards, to tho raising of the water level. Tlie lofendants' building and machinery were destroyed by Sre, and a new building and machinery erected, and fitill there was no objection. . . . The first objection to tho raising of the bank * - «s on Turn %, 1905. . . . .There was other correspondence, but nothing was dono or agreed to, :md the writ in this action was not issued until May 12, 1910." Tho foregoing was tho story of the defendants, which his Honour said ho >iceopted in the evidenco of John Eli Ellis and William Henry Ellis. The plaintiff (Eleanor Thorns), regarding some of tho statements sworn to, could only say rtho did not remember. "The question is," continued his Honour, "do these facta substantiate a plea of leave and license? Tho contention was that no such license was granted, and that if granted it was revocable. ... I havo already dealt with the first contention, and as to the second I am of opinion that it is also not valid." . t His Honour, after referring to anthorihcs. gave it as his opinion that the plea of leave and heenso had been proved.

WRIT OF SALE. ISSUED OVEE THE S.S. WAIEAU. An action of a kind not previously known in the Now Zealand Courts camo before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supremo Court yesterday afternoon, when the Public Trustee, us administrator of tho estate of., jcter Tiernan, lalo of Wellington, deceased, proceeded against Joseph Augusts Perario, master mariner, of Picton, for leave to issue a writ of sale over the stearaor Wairan, owned by Perano. Mr. J. W. Maodonald appeared for tho Public Trustee. It appeared that tho lato Peter Tiornan was a seaman, who was drowned at Havelock on December 20, 1910, while engaged working about tho steamer Wairau. Deceased'left an illegitimate child, which, prior to Ticrnan's death, had been committed to an industrial school. On September 15 last the Public Trustee, as administrator of the estate, proceeded against Perano to recover tho sum of .£325 compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act, 1908. On October i, the Court held that tho child was a total dependent, and awarded the full amount claimed. Perano ie Kaid to have been uninsured, and tho claim had not been settled. The Workers' Compensation Act provides that whore an accident happens in or about u ship the amount of compensation is a chiu-»e thereon, and may be enforced by the Supremo Court hy the sale of . tho ship. t,", 00 k e Pu bhc Trustee's action. iho learned Judge made the order a«kod to, tho order to lio in tho (.'ourt for tKQ Java,

CIVIL LIST. ORDER OP CASES ANNOUNCED. Tho civil list was culled over by Iho Chief Justice. '(Sir Robert Stout , ) nt a Chamber sitting of tho Supremo Court today, when tho following fixtures were inado:— Before a Judge-and Jury. Tuesday, November 21— J. J. keikle v. tho Wellington Loan Co., Ltd., JMIG Ss! lid., damages for alleged false imprisonment. Thursday, November 23— E. R. Broughton v. W. Scott and others, ,11501 damages for alleged slander. Before a. Judge Aionc. Monday, November 20—1 , !. R. R. Burns v. Alice- Scott and others, execution of transfer. Wednesday, November 22—Hannah Bovnu v. Thomas Berau, decree of assignment of securities. Deller and Kcmble v. Public Trustee, claim for specific performance. Friday, November 24— K. Turton v. Harriet Blatchford, claim for specific performance. November 27— J. H. Taylor v. W. F. Parkinson and A. F. Blyth, accounts, etc. November 28—Wilson, v. Harcomt; Smith v.-Attorney-General. November 29—1 1 '. 0. Longhnan and others v. \V. F. Eggors, claim for JM33 Bs. W. and interest due under agreement. November 30— T. G. Macarthy v. James Bonnie and others, claim for .£IOOO, and interest under mortgage. December I—Frank Wills v. John Cameron, claim for .£272 10s., alleged to 1,0 duo for rent; Teresa Briggs v. J. B. and J. S. Harcourt, accounts. December 4—John Duthio and Co., Ltd., v. Now Zealand Shipping Co., Ltd., -E3OO 7s. 9d., damages for alleged breach of contract. December sr-Pierre Chaplin v. W. T. Young and tho .Wellington Section of tho Australasian, Feduratcd Seamen's Industrial Union of Workers, ,£l5O damages and injunction for .alleged deprivation of employment. December 6—Charles Pritchard v. J. J. Harle, .£l5O, alleged to bo duo for work done. : December B—M'Leod r, Wellington Harbour Board. '

Other Cases. The following oases worn also set down—J. A. Perano.v. The Chatham Islands Fishing Co., Ltd., XUOG Ss. 10d. for alleged damage caused by negligence. David O'Hara v. The Victoria Insurance Co., Ltd., ,£7OO, alleged to Le duo under insurance policies. V. 11. Latham and others v. K. C. Henner and others, J!*>o, as indemnity for money alleged to have been paid under judgment. Jatvos O'Doa v. T. G. Macarthy. .£l7B 13a. Id., alleged to bo due for work done.

Deferred. The three following cases were deferred until next sittings, pending tho result of another case:—H. K. Robeftshaw, T. Harman, and E. S. Garrett, all against John Wells Chapman. Divorce. The following divorce cases will be heard on December G:—Joseph Edwin Ffrost v. Emilio .Ffrost and another; Annie Lenihan v. Thomas I.enihan; Richard Albert Swain v. Annie Swain and another; Albert George Vine v. Mary Eva Vine; Mabel' Wright v. Walter Wm. Wright: Thomas Rogers Kells v. Eva Mary Kells and another: Florence Cclia Boyd v. Cecil Leonard Franklin Boyd; Martha Barlow v. Joseph Summers Barlow j and ■ George Thomas Kcllaway t. Mary Kellaway.