SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1437, 11 May 1912, Page 14

SUPREME COURT.

STAGPOOI/E-TIR A XT GA SE. An action i'or alleged libel Mint has been causing a cond deal of intui'osf in Palmnrston North was mentioned loc<ally iu tta Suproiuo CxniTt ycaterday,. before Wli Inetlsa Jiiia jrae ti,Q paw of

Stagpoolo v. Pirntii. Piaintifl moved to mid another defendant, and the defendant asked for change of venue, Mr. M. Myers appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. W. Blair for the defendant. Plaintiff's application was not opposed by defendant, and his Honour made an order joining T. L. Mills as defendant. .Seven days wore allowed in which, to lile a statement of defence. In connection with the application for change of venue, his Honour granted ail adjournment until half-past 10 o'obek this morning. , IN DIVORCE. The following, petitions in divorce are set down for hearing at the civil sessions of tho .Supremo Court, commencing on Monday next:— Before a Judge and a Common Jury of Twelve. Alice Coningham t. Arthur Coningham. John M'Vicker t. Emily Sarah M'Vicker. Florence May Pauleen t. 'Arthur Paulson. Before «, Judge Alon*. Wm. Kobt. Swanson T , Annabell M'Leod Swanson. Mabel Adelaide Caulton t. Bert Harry Howden Caulton. llnrohl Armstrong t. Anna Theresi Armstrong. Elizabeth Annie Chantter ,t. Frederick Ellson Chantler. Alico Ethel Soffe t. Harrj Soffe. Clias. Geo. Lamb t. Lucy Jane Lamb and Herbert Morris. Alexander Dale v. Emma Hannah Dale. Isabella Humphries v. Archibald Wm, llaco Humphries. Maud Leach v. Geo. Leach. Ariel Eliza Economos v. Haralambos Economos. Emma Charlotte Campbell r, John Wm. Campbell. Edith Gertrude Keller t. Wm. Joseph Keller. Wm. Pollock t. Mary Pollock and John Beid. Evelyn Awri* Monk t. Edgsr Qny Monk. Gustave Edwin Pearson t. Harriet Pearson and Hoy Levy. Lucius Charles Orm'eby Gary t. Edith Lilian Gary and Wm. Lome Robinson. CONINGHAM-CONINGHAM. When the case of Coningham v. Coningham —a divorce petition—was mentioned in the Supremo Court yesterday, Mr. P. W. Jackson, for the petitioner," stated that there was an application to have it heard in camera. Mr. Justice Cooper: You will have to show strong grounds for having it taken in Chambers. Mr.'Jackson said that the respondent, who was present, also wished it heard in camera. Mr. Justice Cooper: That is no reason, because tho parties wish it. Certainly,not. His Honour proceeded to state that the point could be considered when' the case came ou for hearing on Monday. Tho respondent (Arthur Coningham) pointed out to his Honour that there was a cross petition, and asked that the two cases be heard together. Hia Honour replied that the other petition was not set down for hearing, and was apparently not ready for trial. He could not , make a fixture for a case that, was not ready for trial. OKDEII OP CIVIL CASES. Mr. Justice Cooper and Mt. Justice Chapman presided over a Chamber sitting of the Supreme Court yesterday, when the following fixtures were made:— Monday, May ,13. Gray and Jackson v. 0. Mewbinney (jury of four). Coningham v. Coningham (divorce, jury of twelve). Tuesday, May 11. C. H. Izard v. W. J. JaiiEeson. M'Vicker v. M'Vicker (divorce, jury of twelve). Smith v. Everett. Wednesday, May 15. . Wesley Knight v. S. S. Mason and Thos. Mason (jury of four). I'aulscn v..l'anisen (divorce, jury of twelve). Thursday, May 16. M'Girr v. Phelps, Wilson and Co. (jury of twelve). H.M. the King v. The Public Trustee and the District Land ■Registrar. Bolton v. Leo and Left. Friday, May 17. Undefended divorce cases. M'Leod v. the Wellington Harbour Board. Monday, May 23. Hood T. Braid (jury of twelve). Tuesday, May 21. H.M. the King v. W. L. Buller and others. Bants Co-op. Meat Distributing Co., Ltd., and Wm. Nicholson v. W. Dimock and Co., Ltd. Wednesday, May 22. Brunskill v. Anderson and Cowan. Thursday, May 23. Pratt and Co., v. Shaw. Harcourt and Co. v. M'Kenzie. Friday, May 24. Wm. de Eenzy v. Fraser. Ramsay (N.Z.), Ltd. (jury of twelve). Monday, May 27, Bankruptcy matters. Gilbert and Co. v. Johnston. Tuesday, May 28. Walker and others v. Commissioners of the Sinking Fund of the Loan for Tramways, Paying, and Town Hall. Wednesday, May 29. Dryedale v. Ferkins and Perkins. Thursday, May 80. Macewan and Macewan, Ltd v Honkirk. SPECIAL JURY REFUSED. In the ense of Waiter Hatch v. the New Zealand Powell Wood Process Company, Rnngataun, Mr. C. 11. Treadwoll (instructed by Messrs. Hankins and Loughnan, Falmerston North) applied for a special jury. Mr. P. j. O'E«gan, on behalf of the plaintiff, opposed tho application. After hearing argument, his Honour held that a common jury would be quite compoten , ; to determine (no matters iu issue. The application was according dismissed, with £1 Is. costs. °