LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 1995, 28 February 1914, Page 14

LAW REPORTS.

SUPREME COURT. ESTATE OF A TRANSVAAL MINER. HIS MURDER PRESUMED. THE POSITION OP WIFE & FAMILY. A claim of an unusual character, under the Family Protection Act, was hoard in. the l Supreme Court .yesterday before His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout).

In this case Elizabeth Mabel Murphy prayed for relief for her children out of the estate of John Pollard Snook, her divorced husband. Snook, it appeared, is supposed to have been murdered in tho Transvaal soma years-ago by a gang of robbers while following tlio occupation of a gold-miner. His death was presumed at law, and the Public Trusteo is awaiting the issuo of tho case to distribute his estato. Undor Snook's will his mother, an old woman of 73 years of age, was made sole beneficiary, the estate producing the sum of £310, the proceeds from a life insurance policy. The affidavits filed disclosed the fact that Mrs. Murphy had twice married since divorcing Snook. Her second husband, Fuller, was dead, and then she had married Murphy, with whom sho was not now living.

Sir John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. D. R. Hoggard, appeared, for Mrs. MUrpliy, Mr. A. W. Blair for tho mother of tho deceased Snook, and Mr. J. W. Jlacdonald watched the proceedings cn behalf of tho Public Trustee.

The Wife's Struggle. Sir John Findlay said that, as Mrs. Snook, Mrs.-Murphy had a very unhappy life, and in 1901 she had obtained a divorce on the ground of misconduct and other causes. For some timo before tho divOrco proceedings wero brought sho had practically maintained her husband, herself, and her children. In 1895 slio had insured her life, and had also induced her husband to do likewise. From that timo. 'until the divorco sho had paid all premiums, thus keeping tho policies alive. Aftor tho divorce her husband disappeared, and went to South Africa, and sinco that time ho had novor contributed one farthing. Tilrs. Murphy was now in ill-health, and what property sho had was so heavily encumbered that sho was practically penniless. Ono of tho two children, in respect of whom aclaim was made, was a girl, aged 15 years, who was now living in a home, where the mother was unablo to contribute towards her support. Tho son, aged 20 years, was willing to forego any claim which he might havo on the estate, in order that his portion might go to increase any benefit that his sister might receive. If the girl got.tho whole of. tho £310, it would not be more than was necessary for her maintenance and education.

Mr. Blair contended that the Snook's mother was wholly incapable of keeping herself. On the other hand it was only reasonable to, presitmo that deceased's daughter was quite capable of obtaining domestic employment. Further, his client alleged that, since 1900, the premiums on Snook's insurance policy had been paid not by Mrs. Murphy, but by H. llix-Trott, engineer, on behalf of tho deceased's mother, who was his (Trott's) mother-in-law; .. .

"The Moot Wronged Party," His Honour held that somo allowance ought to bo made to the girl, but that tho son ought to bo ablo to oarn his own living. The .party in tho caao who had been most wronged was Mrs. Murphy, but, unfortunately, ho had no power to give her any relief. He could not allow tho whole estato to go to tho deceased's mother. His Honour then ordored that £100 should be held out of the estate for tiie benefit of tho girl, and tha remainder paid, to the mother of deceased. Ten guineas costs were allowed out of the estate.

THE FiRST OFIjER. SELLER CLOSES ON IT TOO LATE. A decision of importance to persons dealing in land as purchasers, or sellers, or agents,- was given by_ the Chief Justice (Sir Kobert Stout) in tho Supreme Court yesterday.

Tho action was between D, D. Hyde, farmer, of Paraparaumu, plaintiff, and Niniwa Heremaia, a Native woman residing at Martinborough, defendant. The claim was for the specific performance of a contract allegedly entered into by Niniwa Heremaia to purchaso a property at 22 Kent Terrace for tho sum of £2250. At the hearing it was admitted that Niniwa Heremaia had inado an offer to'purchaso at £2250. . Without actually accepting this offer, plaintiff interviewed a friend of defendants as to tho possibility of getting an increased price, namely £2375, from her. The of this conversation was communicated by the friend to Niniwa Hen, maia. On being advised that thero was no possibility of Niniwa Heremaia increasing her offer, tho plaintiff Hydo accepted her previous offer of £2250. On these facts, counsel for defendant asked for a nonsuit, on tho ground that the contract of sale was not completed by acceptance as well as offer. An offer had been made, lie admitted, but the plaintiff, Hyde, instead of accepting it, had. endeavoured to get tho terms varied in his favour. . This, he contended, amounted to a rejection of tho offer,' and subsequent acceptance could not renew it.

His Honour sustained this contention, and nonsuited the plaintiff with costs as on a claim for £500.

At tho hearing, Mr. E. J. Fitzgibbon appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. It. K. Jackson for tno defendant.

DIVORCE COURT. SUIT by' petitioner fails. The hearing of tho petition for divorco by Edmund Earl Furness against Blanche Louisa Furness, respondent, and Leonard Cook, co-respondent, was continued yesterday before Mr. Justice Hosking. Mr. H. F. O'Leary appeared for the petitioner, Mr. C. W. Neilson for the respondent, and Mr. A. H. Hindroarsh for the co-respondent.

Opening the case for tho defonce, Mr. Neilsen said that tho defenco would bo an absolute denial of any misconduct. It would bo further alleged that, assuming for tho sake of argument thero had been misconduct, it would only have been the natural outcome of the petitioner's indifference towards his wife. It would also be suggested that tho petitioner had done his best fo throw the respondent and the co-respondent, together, with intention. There would bo evidence, also, that petitioner was of unsober habits; and that ho had illused his wife. • Tho respondent and other witnesses denied that there had ben any impropriety. It was further alleged that Furness had been indifferent and oven cruel to his wife.

Following were tho material issues put. to the jury, and the jury's answers to them: —(l) Bid the respondent commit adultery with tho co-rosp6ndent, as alleged in tilie petition?—" No." (2) Was tho petitioner during four years and upwards prior to the petition an habitual drunkard?—" No." (3) Was tho petitioner habitually guilty of cruelty towards the respondent?—" No." Tho question of costs was adjourned to Chambers.