HOKITIKA SUPREME COURT.

Greymouth Evening Star, Volume XXXI, 30 September 1901, Page 2

HOKITIKA SUPREME COURT.

Saturday, Sept. 28th.

(Before His Honor Mr Justice Donniston),

a ' RAMSAY V. FOESYTH. e This was an action asking that accounts r- bo taken in connection with the ndminis T 0 tration of the estate of the plaintiffs late I, father, and claiming damages against if defendant for alleged breach of trust for e non-insuring certain building connected s with the estate.Mr Park for plaintiff, and Mr Beare F for defendant. The plaintiffs counsel submitted that a J decree of accounts should bo made as of ‘ right, as no accounts had been supplied uatil an action was threatened. He also - argued there was negligence on the part , of the trustee in not. keeping up the t insurance on the buildings, as there was 1 money in hand which could be applied i for that purpose. On the other bond if i defendant was not bound by law to insure i them the plaintiff was entitled to a i refund of the premium money paid on i policy.

Mr Beare, for defendant, submitted 1 that decree for accounts would be barred by the deed of release signed by the plaintiff on his coming of ago. As to the noninsurance there was no breach of the law or of trust in this respect, as a trustee is not bound in law to insure. Moreover, there were no moneys in the hands of the trustee for this purpose. It would be admitted that the certroi-quo-trust had a right to got accounts, and tho defendant would consent to a decree in this respect, but in doing so every leniency should bo shown the trustee, as owing to his business premises being burnt down by firo in 1892, all his books and accounts and vouchers in connection with the estate were dcs-

troyed. His Honour thought defendant was acting wisely in agreeing to an order for accounts on the deed of release being signed on the day plaintiff came of age. There was no suggestion of dishonesty ' on the part of the defendant. It would be useless to contend that this * could be a bar to his right now to demand * account. Several authorities were quoted f by counsel on either side, and the 1 question of insurance would stand over c pending the accounts being tanen by the I Registrar. Decree for accounts accordingly.- - c

o’jJRIEN V. gONES. This was an appeal from a conviction -by the Magistraleln Greymouth by which the applicant, a hotelkeeper at Greymouth was lined £lO and costs for Sundey trading. The evidence taken in the lower court was read over.

Francis Meade supplemented the evidence given in the lower court. It was true as he stated he was only in the defendant’s hotel on the Sunday mentioned in his evidence.

Wm. Walton, labourer residing at Greymouth deposed ho was at Ryan’s House at 10.20 a.m. on the Sunday mentioned. Mot Frank Mead in Tainui street on that day and he asked witness to go into Gilmer’s Hotel to have a drink.

Witnessed refused and Mead by himself. On the same day about half an hour laier he saw Mead going towards the back entrance of M’ Kinty’s hotel. Was living at O’Brien’s Hotel at that time.

Cross examined by Mr Hannan witness said he had not come forward to state this in the Magistrate’s Court as he did net know it would do any good.

His Honour saw no reason to reverse the decision of the Magistrate. He dismissed the appeal and uphold the conviction with costs £7 7s and disbursements. williams v williams. Alice L. Williams v. Henry Davis Williams, a wife’s petition for divorce on the grounds of desertion, Mr Free appeared for the petitioner. Alice L. Williams, deposed she was married to the respondent in September 1884 in Nelson. She lived at Nelson and subsequently at Wakefield, Blackwater, and last at Kaituna, Her husband was a runholder. About eight or nine months after they were married she left him for his unkiudness and cruelty. Ho had six grown up children, and when witness married him he was 53. Her age was 25. Witness went back to him subsequently. There were two children born of the marriage. Eighteen months after her marriage her first child was born. After the birth of her second child, sho obtained a position as teacher. While living in Kaituna, her husband never assisted in maintaining the bouse and did not try to get work. On one occasion he took a stick and beat the petitioner and clutched her by the throat, and then her health broke down. At the end ho stopped all letters coming to Kaituna. Witness got one of his letters and it was from a girl asking him when ho was coming to see her. She re-posted the letter, and a few days afterwards he got it. He Accused her of opening his letter and asked if she wanted to ktiow anything further about it. Then he said “If you do anything like that again I’ll break your back.” When witness left him she carried on a school. He had a buggy and at this time he us6d to drive other females out. In December 1890, petitioner left him. She was very ill at this lime the cause of it being worry and anxiety to keep a home over the children’s aead and also his unkindness and cruelty. Witness went to Melbourne to try t;o make a living there, and from there wrote to Mr Williams’ eldest son asking for assistance but she got none. For the last six years she had been earning hex own living at Karamea State School, and was also postmistress and was maintaining her two children. His Honour said the evidence of any physical cruelty was slight. On the oc« casion of opening her husband’s letter petitioner gave the respondent great provocation, however, her husband not having replied to the affidavit of service, practically admitted all that had been alleged, against him. There was the fact they Had. lived so long apart and that the petitioner was respectably supporting herself and her children, and under these circumstances a decree nisi would be granted and the custody of the children with costa £2O and disbursements. AEMSTEONG AND AEMSTEOKG. Alice Mary Armstrong v. John Miohal Armstrong, a wife’s petition .for dissolution of marriage on the grounds of desertion, Mr Hannan appeared for petitioner. The petitioner disposed she lived at Reefton and was married to her husband at Lyell in May 1878. Lived with her husband till June 1895. There were four children by the marriage. Her husband was a butcher. He worked eight milea from Lyell and used to come home once a week. He went to work one week in June 1895, and did not rereturn and sho had not seen him since* She supported herself and her children by dressmaking. Her husband had been an habitual drunkard. About four months after her husband deserted her she received a money order telegram for £3 from him had not ainoe had any communication with him. She had heard of of his whereabouts from other but had no word from him.

Emmo Moss, daughter of the petitionee corroborated the evidence of her mother. His Honour granted a decree nisi with costs £ls and disbursements,—West Coast Times report.