SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1810, 24 July 1913, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

LAW PRACTITIONERS ACT, 1908. SOLICITOR'S CASE. The Chief Justico (Sir Robert Stout), Mr. Justice Edwards, -and Mr. Justice Sim sat on the Supreme Court tench yesterday to 'hear ajj application by Arthur Diiiiit'l Lynch l , solicitor, of Wairoa, Hawke's Bay, for admission as a barrister. Mr. C. P. Skerrott, K.C., with Mr. !•'. P. Kelly, appeared in support of the application. Tho grounds of application 'were: (1) That proper notice of tho applicant's intention to be admitted had been Riven to the Registrar; (2) that the applicant had complied with the provisions of the Law Practitioners Aet, I'JOS, Section .% enabling and entitling him to be so admitted; and (») upon the' grounds'set out in tho affidavits of Charles Perrm Skerrott and Arthur Daniel Lynch. These affidavits showed that from February, 100(1, until April, IUIO, the applicant had been in the employment of Chapman, Skerrott, \Vylie, ami Tripp as common law elci'k, and, during that period, he frequently appeared and practised as a solicitor in the conduct of 'actions in the Supremo Court in Chambers, the _ Bankruptcy Court, the Court of Arbitration, the Native Appellate Court, the Native Land Court, and the .Magistrate's Court. He was also in charge of the preparation of Court of Appeal cases, etc., and engaged in "opink'ii work." Since August, l!) 10, he has been a partner in the firm nf Sandouian and Lynch, solicitors. \Vairoa. After his admission as a solicitor he had kept tirst and second years' terms at Victoria Collegi'. ami had the examination Tor the degree of IJaclielor of l.av/s in all subjects with the exception of Lilin. A point in the ease was that he had not been managing clerk tiuriiig lii.- full term of employment with Chapman, Skerrctt, W.vlie, find Tripp, After hearing oounficl, the Court inti-

mated that judgment would bo delivered at a later date. POINT IN A WILL. Anolhcr case before the aamo thrift ■lu.iges was all originating summons to ..(M-i-mint the construction of the will lI Arthur Albert Eanthaw, deceased, and lormerly a iarint-r, of ilawera. Plaintiff in the action was Mary Fantham, his widow, and the defendant was the Public Trustee, who is the trustee of the will, Mr. 1). 11. l''indlny, ivit|i Mi. 0. ii. mt, appeared for Mrs. I'antham, while Mr. ,1. W. Macdonald appeared for the l'ublitt Trustee.

Arthur Albert Faullium died ou'Janu nry 18, 1901. His will directed Uie trustees to pay the widow (during widowhood) an annuity of <£:il)0. The surplus income was to be invested until the youngest surviving child attained the ago of '21 years. Then a sufficient sum was to bo set aside to provide an annual income of 030. On Mrs. lantham's death or remarriage, the principal sum set aside to produce her annual income was to bo divided among the children. In the early years of the administration the income was insufficient' to _i>a.y and the widow now asked for an order to determine the questions:— Whether the annuity was charged only en the annual incomer Whether it was <> continuing cliaige on .income so as to be made up in subsequent years? Whether it was a charge on corpus? . After hearing argument, their Honours reserved decision.

LADDER & PEDESTRIAN. APPEAL FROM LOWER COURT. . The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) and Mr. Justico Sim sat later in the day to hear an appoul from a decision given in the Magistrate's Court at. Wellington. Tile claim was that in which Thomas Sherlaw, watchmaker, of Wellington, proceeded against Joseph Lewis, proprietor of tho Central Cleaning and Vacuum Company, of Wellington, claiming ,£2UO damages alleged to be due for bodily in. juries received. Briefly, Sherlaw alleged that Lewis's servants left a ladder in a dangerous position in Featherston Street on January 1-1 last. Tho result was that, while Sherlaw was walking along the footpath, the ladder fell, and seriously injured him. llenco his claim for damages. The magistrate gave judgment for defendant, and from this decision Sherlaw appealM to the Supreme Court. Mr. D. M. Pindlav. appeared for Sherlaw, while Mr. M. Myers, with Mr. P. H. Putnam, appeared for Lewis. After hearing legal argument, his Honour reserved decision.