LAW REPORTS

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2750, 19 April 1916, Page 9

LAW REPORTS

SUPREME COURT

A CASE ARGUED IN 1913

In tho Supremo Court yesterday Bis'l Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) delivered his reserved judgment in a case argued before him nearly three years ago. The case was a family dispute hetweon Joseph Edwards and Maud Trout, of Auckland (appellants) and Ada Louisa Nott, of Palmorston North (respondent). The Chief Justice, after tho hearing, was asked-to defer judgment in order that counsel for the appellants might look up authorities on the question of whether under the notice of.appeal he could argue points not raised in the argument in the Court below. : As His Honour had heard nothing more of it he thought the case had been settled until it was mentioned to him again. Tho appellant Edwards was tho father of the respondent, while tho other appellant was the respondent's sister. The original action by the appellants (plaintiffs in tho Court bolow) was for tho return of \ money lent by Edwards to his daughter (defendant in tho Court below). The/defence was that tho money was no longer duo as Edwards and Mrs. Trout had authorised the respondent (tho defendant _in the Court below) to spend it in taking Edwards's sick granddaughter to Sydney for health reasons and treatment. The Magistrate found -for the respondent, and the appeal was against that decision on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of evidence. The reasons for which appellant's counsel had asked His .Honour to defer judgment were not'mado good by the reference to authorities on the question mentioned, and < His Honour did not thmk any authorities could be found on the question. On rcviowing the whole case, His Honour dismissed the appeal, with £6 6s. costs. At the hearing Mr. P. Levi appeared for tho appellants, Mr. A. W. lllair acting for the icspondent. THE FAMILY PROTECTION ACT. An originating summons under the Family Protection Act, 1908, was heard before His Honour Jihe Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) at tho Supreme Court yesterday. Hie' plaintiff was Janet Severn, wife of John Severn, painter, Brooklyn, and the defendant the Public Trustee, executor of the will of the late John Priest. The will of the latter was sworn at £5529 4s. 9d., and the plaintiff asserted that under that will inadequate provision was made for her proper maintenance and support. Consequently she asked for such relief as the Court might deem fit. A large number of affidavits were filed on behalf of both parties, and numerous witnesses weru examined. Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with Mr. R. -Kennedy, appeared for the plaintiff, and Sir John Findlay, IC.C, with him Mr. J. W. Macdonald, for the Public Trustee. After hearing argument, His Honour reserved decision.