LIST OF CASES FOR HEARING

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2770, 13 May 1916, Page 2

LIST OF CASES FOR HEARING

The foljptving cases have bsen est down Jor hearing during the civil sessions of lao bujireme Court, which commenco on JWnday morning. At a Chamber sitting ot the Court yesterday, before His Honour Air. Justice Hoiking, ffie'list was call, ed over, the only dates fixed being those as shown. » Before a Special Jury of Twelve. ' National Cash Register Co. of -lustralasiu,- ltd. (Mr. Keave) v. the C.M. ltes to. (Mr. Tripe).—Claim, .61206 for alleged breach of contract; counter-claim, ,£121) anil interest for deposit paid. L. i'. AVallis and Co., Ltd. (Mr. Petherick) v. the Dominion Motor Vehicles Ltd. (Sir J. I'indlay).—Claim, X 3575 for alleged breach of agreement.. Before a Common Jury of Twelve. Pictures, Ltd. (Mr. Tripe) v. Marshall John Donnelly (Mr. M , Grath).-Claiui lor £7 ft alleged to be due on calls; coun-ter-claim for ,£775 damages. / Alice E. Pearce (Mr. Beere) v. Henry Lrnest Kempthorno and AVillielm Farquhar Eggers. (Air. Meek).-Cla'im, .£sll for alleged wrongful distraint; counter-claim, ~ll' 15s. for rent. (May 15.) Alfred Ernest Cocker (Mr. Anderson) v. Mrs. N- Nightingale-(Mr.. Levi):-Claim, .£(>9B for alleged injuries received. Arthur Waldemar Kchaef (Mr. M'Grath) v. K. nnd E. Tingey and Co., Ltd.. (Mr. iVeave). Claim .for .'=£sGs for alleged injuries received.' (May 16.) •' George Frederick Roy Houldsworth (Mr. Mackenzie) v. the" ■Wellington' City Corporation (Mr. O'Shea).—-Claim for for alleged injuries received. (May 17.) Before a Judge Alone. William John Baker (Mr. Levi) v. Francis Joseph Worley (Mr. O'Leary).—Claim"' for possession of animals and. .£4OO damages for wrongful detention. , Mary Isabel Toms (Mr. Wysitt) v. the Public Trustee (Mr. Macdonald):-Motion to set aside a trust. (May 24.) Tootal Broadhurst Leo Co'., Ltd. (Mr Mackenzie), v. Veitch and Allan.—Cla f m for injunction. I . James Walker (Mr. Levi) v. Isabel Chrystal Vickers. (Mr.. Near?).—Motion for declaration. Sarah Bootes (Mr. Levi) v. Staples and Co., Ltd.—Claim <£501- damages for alleged nuisance and an injunction. (May 25). ........ ...... f .. John Devereaux r. Brodie and Co.— Cla ; m.for £lli 7s. ,2d.:for. moneys paid on deposit and damages; counter-claim .£IOO for commission I IN DIVORCE. • : Before a Common Jury of Twelve. Harold Cecil Williams (Mr. Levi) v. Lydia Caroline Williams (Mr. Hunter) and another (Mr. Harper).—Application for dissolution of marriage.- -. Clarence Cyril Edgar Stevens (Mr.' O'Leary) v. Margaret Sarah ' Stevens arid another (Mr, Hindmarsh).—Dissolution.' (May 18). > Martha Unsworth (Mr. Levi) v. Henry Unsworth (Mr. O'Leary).—Dissolution. * John Bonasich (Mr. O'Leary) v. Ada Bonasich and another (Mr. Hiiidmarsh).— Dissolution. (May 19.) Herbert Ives Colebrooke Kimiibnrgh (Mr. O'Leary) v. Elsie Kinniburgh and another (Mr. Levi).—Dissolution. (May 20.) ... : ;VC

Before a Judge Alone.;':. I '.' . Lillian .Eleanor Glew (Mr.' Levi)- v. Thomas Augustine Glow.—Dissolution.';; Douglas William Hamilton (Mr.' Levi) , v. Margaret Jane ' ' Bertha Mary Randall (Mr. Atkinson) v. Harry' Clarke Randnll.—Dissolution. Mary Ann Walsh (Mr. Levi) v. Thomas William Walsh—Dissolution. Edith Susan Bergensen (Mr. Levi) v, Alexander Martin- . Bergensen.—Dissolution. , Merewether Osmond Meadows (Mr. Levi) v. Mary Trotter Stratton Meadows—Dissolution. i '' " ' 7 ' Frederick Bradley, (Mr. Levi) ;v.= Annie Latham.—Nullity.. • , Elizabeth Jauo Adams (Mi\ Tripp) v.' : James 'Stafford Adamsz-rDissolution. Hilda Henrietta Schlaadt (Mr. Levi) v. Hilton Cleveland. Guy.Hawkins—Nullity. Frederick Tucker (Mr. Perry) v.'Daisy May Tucker (Mr. Petherick).—Dissolution.' Zoo Maud Sheridan'(Mr. Levi) v. John Sheridan.—Judicial-separation. John Henry Thompson (Mr. Hindmarsli) v. Minnie Thompson and another.—Dissolution. Wiiiiam Hill Philip (Mr. Levi) v. Mary Adeline May Philip.—Dissolution. Rebecca Cupper (Mr. Neilsen) v. Alfred' Edward Capper.—Dissolution.. .. Amcotts. Cracroft Wilson (Mr. Levi) v. Beryl liussell. Wilson.—Dissolution. Alice Thomas (Mr; Levi) v. RichardThomas—Dissolution. .. Mary Ann Clark (Mr. O'Leary) v..Fitzgerald Clark.—Dissolution. ' Maud Jenkins (Mr.- Izard) v. Melville Augustus Francis Jenkins—Dissolution. All undefended divorce" cases' are set down for hearing on- May: -29;- -■ --I-, ... JUDGMENT FOR" DEFENDANT" His Honour Mr. Justice Chapman- delivered his reserved judgment "yesterday afternoon in the case of psmond anil others (Mr. T. Ncnve) v. Dalgety and Co. (Mr. C. P. Skerrett, with him Mr. It. Kennedy). The case was a clainr for' ..£32 10s., being the refund of a withdrawal commission paid by Osmond under protest on the release.of..chattel security. The plaintiffs claimed that the mortgagees, Dalgety and Co., were not entitled to the -withdrawal- commission, as- the covenant in question'transgressed the rule against a mortgage fettering tli'e riglit'of a mortgagor to release on payment of the actual money due." , The judgment of the.Court was-that the 'withdrawal commission stipulated! for- was not in the nature of a penalty -against-; tso mortgagor, but was in the nature of ill additional price paid by the iiiorlgiigor.for,, financial accommodation, and rfs such , was • enforceable. _ Judgment was .accordingly given for the defendant company. AN APPEAL i His Honour Mr/ Justice Chapman yesterday commenced the hearing of Itie case in which Sanders Bros., builders ai,d contractors, appealed against a. recent judgment obtained against theni' in the Court. by Strange and Co., Ltd., of. Christc'hurch, for two sums 'ol .£lfii -3s. 6(1. and JE55' !te. 9d. ..Mr! A. Gray, IC.C., with .him ;Mr.o. ,N. Bcero, appeared for the appellants, and Sir.. John Findlay, K.C., with him Mr. J. J. M'Grath, .for the respondents. The case Arose out of the furnishing of the new Opera House, for which the' respondents were sub-contractors, the appellants bting tho main contractors. The tiues'bn at issue was one of liability, and a l * to w-ba-ther, it-rested with the main contractors or tho Opera House Company, Ltd., there being no dispute as, to the .amounts. in question. It was stated,, in. answer, to Sir. Justice Chapmani that; the defcnce in the Lower Court Was that Stiange and Co., J<td., were employed by (he supervising arciiitect has since (lied) ui behalf of the Opera -House Company, Ltd.; and not on', behalf of the appellants. C'onsiderablo argument followed on an application, on behalf of the appellants'., for tho admission of Certain letters which were not before the' Magistrate's Court, and eventually the hearing was adjourned until . Tuesday next, viti order to allow of an' opportunity to the respondents to produco further evidence if necessary.