SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 11, Issue 138, 28 February 1918, Page 9

SUPREME COURT

» SOME INTERESTING APPEALS

CASE UNDER MILITARY SERVICE ACT

The question of the respomihilily of an employer under the Military Service Act formcfl th? subject of a reserved judgineiit by the Chief .1 iisticre in the Supremo Court ycslorclny. R. Hannah and Co. appealed ag.iinsl. (lie. decision of .\fe'. 8. K Jt'Carthy, S.M., in the Lower Court, condieting I'liom of having committed a. breach ;ir |]io Military fcier.vice Ant by employing oVc Harry C Scaife, who helonged to the Frrst Division of the Kxpeditionary Forco ReVrve, and was not, enrolled therein. j']V A. W. Blair appeared for the appellant:, and Mr. P. S. K. Macassey for the The' Crown insisted that it was the duty of the* appellants to inform the Government f!<atistioian in order to relievo themfplvc9 from the onus caßt upon them by nis Honour commented that the defendant ' 1,1(1 represented himself to bo a returned EdloHer, and ho did rot consider that in the oircumsta-np.ee Hannah and Go wore oWfced to refer to the Government Statistician, or the Recruiting Office or the Defence Otlice, to find out whether the story Mill by Kcaife was trim. The statute shottlJ be amended if it. was desired to carry ftui what the prosecution contended, namelv, that an employer Bhonld ha.ve to repc\-l to the aforementioned authorities, unless the' applicant for employment produced ,sbme document from thb IWetfee Office showing that he was exempted. Tho law at present did not provide for (hie. > . The appeal was allowed, wiMi no costs.

AN IMPRISONED TRAILER

SUJT DISMISSED. "This is a peculiar case," eomm'vtffed tho Chief Justice, Sir Robert Stout, Mrt the Sunreme Court yesterday in dellvekutyf his reserved judgment in an action foV: damages for accidental detention of ablest in the room of a. private hotel. lfcVcy George Waller, a commercial travel lefc, v>l Christchurcli. sought, to recover £143 , to 6d general and special damages imvl Hamilton Gilmer and others. The defenu- , ants were, with the exception of the manager (W. Brennan), owners of the Trocar Mr C W. Nielsen appeared for the liloiiitifl, and Mr. A. AV. Blair for tho defendants. ■ . . In his judgment, His Honour emphasised that the cause of the door not opening was according to the evidence of the locksmith, that the plaintiff Waller had used force in locking it on retiring tho previous night. This force broke part of the bck and thus made it impossible to open it with a key. Waller was thus tho cause of Ilia own detention, and reasonable Btepn were taken which led to his release. Plaintiff could have got out of the room earlier by way of the fanlight, or by the simple expedient of lowering himself out ot-the window on to the roof cf the next floor by means of a sheet. The action was entirely • misconccivf-d and without, any merit. ■ Judgment was accordingly given for the defendants, with costs according, to scale.

A TEST CASE

POWERS OF LOCAL isOBIES. In the Supreme Court yesterday tho Chief Justice. Sir Eobert Stout, delivered hin reeerved judgment in a test appeal case concerning the rating powci'b of local bodies. ■ The parties io the action wero Thomas H. Dwan, appellMit, and the Luwer Hutt Borough Council, respondent. The appellant' appoaled from a decision of the Magistrate's Court by which rates to the extent of £24 17s. 6d. hail been recovered by the council. Dwan appealed to the Assessment ■ Court for a reduction in the valuation of his land: The valuation was sustained by the Court,, and Hie appellant took the clause in the Valuation Act which cast the omiß on the Government of purchasing. After tho i-mincil'* 'rate-book lmrl boon made up the Taluer-Gcneral intimated to the council that the Government woalr; not purchase tho land, and the .valuation, would have to be reduced. The point in dispute ivas whether thp ratc-lmok was conclusive or if tho respondents were bound to alter the valuation and rate assessed on tho prnner'v. Hi* Honour- pointed out that lie could Pmi ii" provision in tlin Act maliim.' tho alteration retroactive, and he must thercfnrn hold with the Jfajistrate in his decision. . . . . ■

The appeal was dismissed, with .£7 7s. ro-ts.

INSOLVENT CONTRACTOR

CAUBTIO COMMENT FROM IiMCH. Further inquiry was made on a judgment summons in the Supreme Court yesterday into' the financial affaire, of David Morris Owens, contractor, of Pirie.htrect, before the Chief Justice, Sir Robert. Stout. Mr. G. Hutchison appeared for the judpment creditor (John Henry Hooper, land .i-reiit, Wellington) and Mr. A. Dunn for tho judgment debtor. The amount of tlio judsment is £220. ' • Afr. Hutchison ; prefaced his examination of Owens with a statement that he had examined "the books of accounts," but tb"» did not afford much enlightenment. The examination discloeed the fact that Owens valued his property at £14,000. and it was entailed to the extent qf £7000 in first mortgages. On this he did not estimate his return, at more .than 5 or 6 por'cent. on the capital, value. His position was that lie had 6 pnr cent: mortgages over. 5 per cdnt. properties. . ■ ■ After further Questions Owens conferred with iiis counsel, and the latter announced to the Court that - Owo"R tind agreed to bP"nrar a bankrupt immediately. His 'Honour then rinsed the procertlincs, with ' the remark": "Well, that .settles the matter." " "• •'. ■•" ■ ■ " '■■ .'•.'"

JUDICIAL SEPARATION

. ' ''eHOCKING-ALnEGATIONS.'• •■ Allegations of disgraceful conduct of a husbiind towards his viifo wcrii revealed in "the Supreme Court: yesterday-.before-tho Chief Justice, .Sir Robert Stout. Mrs. Winnifrcd Mary Holmes, of Wellington, petitioned for. a judicial separation from her husband,'!. Garnet Burn Holmes', of Wellington, garage' proprietor, ' Mr, A. Gray, K. 0., appeared ' for the .petitioner, and the suit was not defended. . The petitioner said s'ho was marncd.in St. Mark's Church, Wellington, on May 14, 1907- There was one child, of: the marrjagc, a hoy,"horn in IMB. _ A short time after their marriage petitioner and her husband went to London to live. Tho parties lived'together there till January, 1911 when her husband left. Jier and went Id live with another woman. : Ho remained with the latter for two years, and in Ihc meantime tho woman's husband divorced her. petitioner's husband ■ hciilg , named as co-respondent. In 1911 petitioner returned to New Zealand with her child, lintcr her husband proceeded from .hngto.nd to Sydney. -. From the latter place he wrote many penitent letters, and in e again left her, and petitioner, after passing through a. serious illness, again returned- to . New. .Zealand. fSnondent followed her to New Zealand ami a*ain persuaded her ;to take him nek Last, year thece was a scandal at l'iand nay. and fls i;n oulcotnß o this rrspondeut was* for ... second time joined us a co-rcupondcnl in n divorce suit. "Corrob'irative evidence was given by. * private dpteclivc and n. number r,r other ei-n.nt.ed the petitioner fl. judirial senaralinn, with custody of the child. Tild als , " niadp an additional order do-i'-larinc Holmes to be unlit to be custodian ~f tin' rbild. This latter order van m.ide in order to ensure tint in event of the death of I.lio petitioner Ihe husband would not havi! the ciislofly of the child. Costs were granted on Hie lowest ecale.

A DISPUTED WILL

A DAUGHTrars KHAHB. \ matter uiubr the Family Protection AH. was llio'nnbiiict, of a reserved judgment by tho Chief .Justice, Sir Robert Stout in the Supremo Court yesterday. The case, wiis Mrs. I'Jirr versus Sutherland and another (executors of Alexander M'Lcod, deceased). Mr. Levi appeared for llio plaintiff, and Mr. 0. I'. Skerrett, K. 0.. iiud with him Mr. Card, for the defendants. . , ~ The otiestien at issue, was whether the plaintiff, as (laughter of MT.eod, was entitled to an increase in (be Ingacy left, her under l.lio will. She. was left by her father the sum of only £60. Deceased left n similar sum to another daughter, and to a third he henuontbed £?.00. The totnl amount of the estate van ,£13.446. The main benelicinrics under the will were the sons of the deceased. His Honour commented that no doubt, tho eoiih helped their father to mnke the money. The. mother of the plnintifl died intestate, and Hie latter win entitled to an. equal share ivilh her brother* and sisters In this estate. "Reganlinir the point, in dispute. His Honour made" an'order increasing Ihe original legacy from £60 to £140, nnd allowed Hip. plaintiff £10 10s. costs- .