SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1629, 21 December 1912, Page 11

SUPREME COURT.

CROSS APPEAL DECIDED. In the Supreme. Court' yesterday .: the \ Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), delivered reserved judgment in an appeal from a decision by Dr. A. •M'Arthur, S.M. .> The decision was delivered in Wellington on. September 17.1 ast, arid the partfeß .concerned in the appeal were Anderson and Co., engineers, of Chiistchmeh, and Dalgety and Co., Ltd.. of Wellington. It appeared that, in March, IDO9, Anderson and Co. oontraotod to supply a lilt

for Dalgety and Co.'s new building iii Featherston Street. The lift was completed, and taken over in May, 1910. Under the terms of -the contract, Anderson and Co. agreed to maintain the lift for 12 mouths, subject to the condition that any repairs rendered necessary l>y negligent working should bo paid lor by Daigely and Co. This led to on action in tho Lower Court, in which Anderson and Co. sued Dalgety and Co., with a view to recovering a sum of £SH 6s. lid. in connection with work done to the lift. Dalgety and Co. paid a sum of ,£39 la. 6d. into Court in satisfaction of portion of tho claim. This, howevor, left two item's in dispute—iil7 lGs. 5d., the charge for supplying and fixing steel rods, and £6 95., the cost of inspection. His Worship had formed the opinion that tho steel rods should have been supplied by Anderson and Co. at their own cost, but he had allowed the sum of £§ 9s. for inspection, and accordingly gave judgment for this sum, in addition to the amount paid into .Court. Neither party had been satisfied with the decision, and both appealed on the grouhd of law and fact. Mr. T. .'Ncavo appeared for Anderson and Co., while Mr. A. AV. Blair appeared for Dalgety and Co., Ltd. His Honour dismissed the appeal of Anderson and Co., but held that Dalgety and Co., Ltd., should succeed inasmuch ns tho. magistrate's judgment for <£6 9s. should bo reduced to £2 17s. Dalgety and Co. wero allowed J23 3s. costs.. .

TE MOMI ESTATE. DISPUTE AS TO DRAINAGE. Sewer drainage and tho question as to whether or not certain work in connection therewith should be carried out on Te Mo mi Estate, Lower Hutt, were matters that gave rise to an action in the Supreme Court last week, before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout). Reserved decision on the question was delivered by his Honour yesterday. The Lower Hutt Corporation wero plaintiffs, and the Te Momi Land Co., Ltd., were defendants. Mr. A. W. Blair appeared for the corporation, while Mr. P. Levi appeared for the Land Company. I'ue corporation asked the Court to say whether a certain bond (given by the members of the Te Momi Syndicate, in connection with the subdivision of the estate), to secure payment of a sum of -£800, was intended to cover the cost of construction of sewer drains in the estate. If the bond did not bear this interpretation, the corporation asked that it should be rectified, so as to give effect to the original agreement between tho corporation and the Byndicate.i as disclosed by the correspondence. ! Mr. Blair Called expert evidence as to tho necessity for the construction of the drains. • Mr. Levi called no evidenoe. He submitted that tho Court conld not go be? hind the bond, and this, it was clear, had no application to sewer drainage. ; His Honour made the declaration asked for in tho statement of claim, holding that "drains" in the bond meant tho drains originally agreed upon. Plaintiffs were allowed nfteeh guineas costs and witnesses' expenses and disbursements.

; IN DIVORCE. - An undefended divorce petition came before the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) in the Supreme Court yesterday mornings when evidence was heard in the case of 'Florence Estelle Fraser v. Francis Roger Fraser. Mr. D. M. Findlay appeared in support of the petition. Giving evidence, Mrs. Fraser 6aid that she was a ladies' hairdresser,, residing at Mosman's Bay, Sydney. On July 12, 190G, she was married to the respondent, and livod with him in Sydney until September 1 of the same year, when he -,came to New Zealand for the purpose of making a home for his wife. The parities corresponded, but the husband sent no money to his wife, and did not ask her to. join him in New Zealand. She ibelieved he was now practising as a denitist in Tauranga. ; After this endcnce had been tendered, ; the further hearing was adjourned until ■ Monday. • ' INJUNCTION BY CONSENT.

EDISON RECORDS. Thomas A. Edison, Ltd., hav© a special New Zealand catalogue for their protected goods, and have recently been proceeding against certain firmß to restrain them from Belling under catalogue price. Mr. M. Myers, acting on behalf of Edison, Ltd., yesterday obtained an injunction ty consent against Henry James Turner and E. E. Turner, cirrrving on business as Turner and Co. 'at Wanganui and Morton. In a filed consent the defendants admitted the sale of certain goods by their Marton representative at prices less than prescribed in the current catalogue. The sale, it appears, was made without;their knowledge, and after their representative had been instructed to deliver their goods to the Wanganui business. Defendants therefore consented to an injunction regarding the Marton business. His Honour, tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) granted an injunction in terms of the consent, plaintiffs being allowed ten guineas ccsts and disbursements.