LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1599, 16 November 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

ADMIRALTY COURT. WANGANUI SALVAGE CLAIM. The sitting of the Admiralty Court was continued in "Wellington yesterday,: to consider a claim ior salvage in connection with, the towing of the disabled sailing vessel Wanganui on September 21 and 22 last. The_ Chief Justice (Sir Robert stout) presided, and with him as assessors wero Captain D, J. Watson find Captain E. J. Gillespie. There-were two actions, and both were taken together. ■ The first case was-that in which'the owners, master, and crew of the steamer Arapawa proceeded against the ship. Wanganui, her cargo, and l freight, to-recover the sum of .£1500"for 'salvage. In the second case the owners,''master, and crew of the eteamer'-Kapiti made a claim for for services'rendered. ; : Mri'E. X'lCirkcaldie appeared for the claimants in'both cases, while Mr. C. B. Alorison, K.C., with Mr. W. 11. D. Bell, appeared for the owners of the Wanganui. . A large portion'of the evidence -was heard on Thursday. It wascompleted yesterday, and after legal argument had been heard, the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. to-day, when decision will most likely be given, SUPREME COURT. > 1 DIVORCE PETITIONS. A number of undefended divorce petitions came before Mr. Justice Chapman, in; the Supreme Court yesterday, but' his ■ Honour was unable to hear the whole of them. The remainder may be taken by the Chief Justice this morning. Jane Blakely, for whom Mr. A. H. Hindmarsh appeared, sought a, dissolution of. her marriage with .Weymouth Blakely on the ground of desertion. The parties, it was statedj'were married in Wellington in 1905, and lived together Iwe until the following year,'when respondent left his ■wife. Since that time petitioner had not heard, of him—a decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute in three months. Therese Gerritzen petitioned for. divorce from. Jphann ; Heinrich Gerhard Wilhelm , Gerritzen on the - ground'. of desertion. Mr. J.,C.-Peacock, who appeared for the ■petitioner, led .evidence to show that the parties were ; married in January, 1000, and lived together at Wellington and Lower' Hutt until 1901, when the husband, who was financially embarrassed/ left for 'Australia.- He had not since contributed to the support of his wife or two children. . A decree nisi was granted, ,■ to ,be. made absolute in- three months. Costs on the lowest scale were allowed against the respondent. A Chinese, named Lim Leo, sought dissolution of. his marriage with-Maud Lim Leo on the ground of her misconduct with another Chinese. The marriage of. the parties took place as recently as January, 1912, in Christchurch, and 6ince then'they had resided together for a brief period in Wellington. Evidence of misconduct having been tendered, his Honour granted a. decree nisi. _Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared far the petitioner, while Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the respondent, who filed an answer to the petition, but subsequently withdrew it. . . ' Daisy Edith Anderson, for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared, asked that her marriage with William Burrett Anderson should be dissolved, as the latter had. deserted her over five yeaTS ago, and had not sinoe contributed to her maintenance. The parties, it was stated, were married in July, 1898,. and. .afterwards, lived together, at: Auckland, Dunedin, and Wellington. .The respondent went dwajr in April, 1907, and since then the petitioner lad not heard of him.' His Honour granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months. Costs on the lowest scale weTe - allowed, against: the respondent. Mr. T. Weave appeared for James Montague France, who sought dissolution -otto's marriage with Janet. Isabella France on. the* ground of desertion. .'The parties were married in April, 190G, and' lived together at Te AToha for a little, over ten months., then,.left 'Jftr. ' Inver-' cargill,' and-after 'her husband for five-weeks telegraphed to say that she 1 did, riot intend to 'write again. From that time respondent had lived in' IpvercargiU,-. and, had not replied-' to a, letter from;,her husband asking her to return. _A disoree.nisi. wasjgranted. • Habitual drunkenness and cruelty were the grounds on which Catherine :Eickman eoueht to have her marriage with John William Eickinan' dissolved. Mr. M. M. F. Luckie appeared for the petitioner, and called evidence to show that the parties were/married in' July, 1889, and'liyed together, at Wadestown until June, 1907. There were several children of the marriage. For many 'years. : respondent had failed to maintain his wife and family. A decree nisi was granted. Clara Ada Barton, for whom Mr. T. M. Wilford appeared, prayed for dissolution of her marriage with Alfred George Barton' on ,the ground of misconduct. The marriage, it was stated, took place at Eegina, Alberta, Canada, on May 13, 1889, and the parties came yto New Zealand about 20 years ago. They lived together until the present; year, when respondent had_ been euilty of misconduct. A decree ,nisi was .granted,, to be made ibsolute in'three months.-; Costs'on the lowest scale were allowed against the respondent. ■ . -. Ernest George' Brown petitioned for divorce from Julia Keppell Brown on the ground of misconduct. Mr. T. M. Wilford, on behalf of the petitioner, called evidence to prove that the parties werei married on December 28, 1899, and lived together until October 5, 1911, there being two children. More recently the respondent had been living at Johnsonville with another man. His Honour granted a decreenisi on the-usual-conditions. ■ Misconduct was the ground on which Nellie Stavely sued for * divorce from Charles George Stavely. Mr. T. Mi Wilford appeared for the petitioner. It appeared that -the marriage took place at Blenheim in April, 1908, and afterwards the parties lived together in the Wairarapa. In the present year the respondent had been guilty of misconduct with an unknown woman at Barrett's Hotel, Wellington. A decree nisi was granted with costs fifai-nst tlin iwArmilnn*.

and the Shaw, Savill, and Albion Co., Ltd., came on for hearing in the Magistrate's Court and after coming before the Supreme Court on appeal it was remitted to the magistrate.: The ultimate decision of bis Worship (Dr. A. M'Arthur) did not satisfy the plaintiffs and yesterday the case again came up in the Supreme Court before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). It took tho form of a case on appeal. The plaintiffs are ironmongers in Christchurch,, aifd tho defendants are the well-known shipping company. Mr. A. Blair appeared for the plaintiffs, and Mr. W. H. D. Bell for the defendants. . The original claim of the plaintiffs was for tho reoovery of .£l-13 2s. Gd. as the | amount of damage' alleged to have been done to wire while the wire fras being shipped from Liverpool to New Zealand aboard the steamer Pakeha. When the case was before him on the first' occasionj : Dr.- M'Arthur' non-suited the plaintiffs on the ground that ' the oaitse of the damage, apparently came within the exceptions stated on .the bill of lading; The plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the magistrate, and the Chief Justioe (Sir Robert Stout) decided that, the nonsuit should not have been entered as the magistrate had not found which "exception" was applicable. The case was therefore remitted to the magistrate, it being understood that either side miffht call further evidence. The case, was reopened on September 12 last, when Mr. Bell, for defendants, called Dr. Maclaurin, the Dominion Analyst, who deposed that he had examined tho. wire, and was of opinion that the damage had been caused by salt. There were, he added, no sulphates present such as would indicate that the damage was duo to sea water. . Subsequently Dr. M'Arthur, S.M.,'t;ave judgment for - defendants and it was from this decision that the plaintiffs (Mason, Struthers, and Co., Ltd.) yesterday appealed on the ground that it was erroneous as "to finding of fact and in point of law. His Honour heard legal argument and then reserved decision. ' , v AUCKLAND; SUPREME COURT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Auckland, November 15. In the Supreme Court, decrees-nisi were granted in the following cases:—Percy Clarence Slyfield v. Bupheia Slyfield and. Frank; Bennett .(co-respondent); .Alice Elizabeth: Noakes v.' Alfred Noakes, ■ desertion;.and Grace MacFarl.arid 'v.., Ar-' thur Christian M'Farland, misconduct.