THE SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1447, 23 May 1912, Page 3

THE SUPREME COURT.

RIPARIAN RIGHTS. OF SLAUGHTERING COMPANIES. Rival interests of neighbouring slaughtering companies, in certain riparian rights affecting their respective works, formed tho subject of a'n action which was commenced in the Supreme Court yesterday, before Mr. Justice Cooper. Tho parties were the Banks Co-operativo Meat Distributing Co., Ltd., and Win. Nicholson, receiver and manager for the debenture holders of tho company (plaintiffs), and W.-Dimock and Co., Ltd. (defendants). , ... ~■ . ,-■ ~ Mr. M.- Myers' aid'-Mr." & J -'HK.F«II appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. C. P. Skcrretfc, K.C., and Mr. A. A. S. Jlonteath, for. the defendants. According to .plaiutiffs's statement, the Banks Meat Company sold about 50 acres of land at Ngahauranga to Dimock and

Co. on January 16, 190G, to enable tho latter to secure water from a stream. In October, 1910, Dimoek and Co. constructed a dam. The Banks Moat Company claimed that they were entitled to take from or abovo tho dam two-thirds of the water of tho stream (a tributary of the Ngahauranga Stream), or, alternatively, a declaration that the defendant company is only entitled to use one-third of the waters referred to. The defendant company contended that the rights claimed and the terms and stipulations referral to were not binding upon dhem—nothing, it was contended, was so expressed in the covenants. After part of tho evidence had been heard the case was adjourned till 2 p.m. to-day. CHARITABLE AID. DISTRICT BOARDS AT ISSUE. An interesting case, relating to tho obligations of Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards in certain circumstances, was heard before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at tho Supreme Court yesterday. An originating summons had been brought to determino whether the South Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board (plaintiff) was entitled to recover from the Hawkc's Bay Education Board (defendants) certain moneys paid by the South Canterbury Board for tho maintenance nt an industrial school of tho illegitimate twin children of a woman who had resided in the Hawkc's Bay district prior to their birth. The points submitted to tho Court were.— Whether the South Canterbury Board was (under Section 72 of the Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act) entitled to recover from the defendant Ixiard money paid to tho mother for the relief of the children: If there were such a right to recover, was the liability got rid of by children's committal to tho industrial school? Mr. 11. D. Bell, K.C. (with him Mr. R. Kennedy) appeared for the plaintiff, And Mr. J. 11. O. Murdoch (of Napier) for the defendant. It was not disputed that the Hawkc's Bay Board was liable for money paid for . tho relief of the mother. Plaintiff contended that the relief granted for the children, whilst they were at home, was relief granted to the mother, since it relieved her of the burden of maintenance. ITnder the Destitute Persons Act tho mother was herself liable to maintain tho children. Consequently relief granted to a child must mean relief granted with respect to a child. Tho position was not altered by the committal of tho children to an industrial home, and the defendant board could not get rid of its liability to reimburse the relief paid, by any such.mere accident. Mr. Murdoch (for the defendants) quoted from early decisions in England as to the operalioti of the Poor-Laws and contended that the New Zealand statutes did not justify the interpretation suggested by counsel for the nlaintiff. Decision was reserved.

IN CHAMBERS. In Chambers yesterday, before their Honours the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justice Cooper application was made in respect to a certain action between Thomas Hood, fruiterer (plaintiff), and John Braid, auctioneer(defendant)—a claim for damages for alleged slander. The application was to attacha third party as defendants, namely, Griffiths and Co., Braid's employers. Tho application, which-was made by Mr. Samuel (for the plaintiff) was opposed by Mr. Fair (acting for Braid) on the ground that the Court could not make an addition which it was contended, carried with it the introduction of a fresh cause of action to the statement of claim.:

Their honours granted the application. The decision was that no substantial fresh cause of action would arise byjoining an. employer to an action already commenced against, the servant in respect, to tho saino apt., Tho addition was clearly permissfblP. ' --v.hi: .n:,.- .--..-.• - The plaintiff was asked to pay to Braid 10 guineas costs for preparing for tho action, and the case would bo left on the list for hearing (luring these sittings if the parties could agree upon tho question of date.