SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1361, 12 February 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

LVTERrifKTATIOX OK WILL. In the Supreme Court on Saturday Jlr. .lustico Chapman heard further argument on u question arising in an orisiimtiiijf summons in which lie was asked (o interpret the will of the late John M'llvriile. The plaintiffs were Alfred Krnest Cousins, ongiaver, of Wellington, ami Thomas ])e----vinc, farmer, of tt'hiti'man's Vallev, trustees of the will of John M'llvrid'e, deceased, settler, late of Wellington. The defendants were SVliitn .M'llvndo, widow, of Wellington; Isabella Agnes Cousins, wife of A. K. Cousins, of Wellington: (.race Al'Kenzie, wife of Alexander Jl'Kenzie. of Ajmere, India; Christina i'rou.-'?, wife of lliehard Vrous?. sawmiller, of Levin; Peter John M'llvride, electrical engineer, of Lower Fluit; mid Catherine Elizabeth M'Uvride, spinster, of Auckland. Jlr. C. H. Treadwell appeared for the trustees and one set of heitelieuiries; Jlr. 0. ]{. Boere for the residuary legatees; and Jlr. A. W. Blair for the "life tenant. A week ago his Honour delivered n judgment answering certain questions, but what he considered a more difficult question was not asked by the originating summons, and the caso was not argued ns if it had been asked. His Honour therefore came to no conclusion upon it. Argument on the point took place on Saturday, decision being reserved. IN DIVORCE. One of the Supreme Court fixtures for to-day was the divorce petition, Alice Conningham v. Arthur Conningham, which was to have been heard before a judge and jury. Respondent, however, tiled an affidavit objecting to tho cose going on nt the present sessions on the ground that, the proceedings had been commenced so recently that ho would be prejudiced. The ease was mentioned in Chambers before Jlr. Justice Chapman on Saturday morning-. His Honour was of opinion that respondent would be prejudiced if the case were forced to trial to-dnv, and thought that it had better stand over until the next civil sessions. Jlr. P. W. Jackson, who appeared for the petitioner, suggested that to avoid n long postponement the case might come before a judge alone at an earlier date. Respondent objected to this, as he desired a jury, and the hearing was therefore adjourned until next sessions.