SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume V, Issue 99, 6 May 1901, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

LIABILITY FOR SPECIAL RATES. AN IMPORTANT DECISION. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Conolly.) A case of great importance to local bodies and ratepayers in road districts was decided by His Honor Mr Justice Conolly, on Saturday. The Kaiti Road Board sued W. H. Tucker, for £l2 16s 2d for rates due on property that had formerly been comprised in the Kaiti road district, but is now a-portion of the new district of Titirangi, the rates claimed being on the special loan.

Mr Nolan appeared for the plaintiff Board, and Mr DeLautour, instructed by Mr Chrisp, for defendant. The pleadings elaborately set out the position, which, put in a simple form, was that the case had been brought as a test one to decide whether ratepayers in the district that had been cut out were liable for interest and sinking fund on loan obtained, prior to the severance, under the Loans to Local Bodies Act. Mr DeLautour claimed that while it would have been a proper thing to have opposed the arbitrators’ award and the order in connection with the severance of the district, it was too late now to attempt to override that order and award. The argument raised by Mr Nolan that if this were allowed a district might be whittled away twelve times until all the security was gone, did not hold, because in that case there would be eleven distinct awards and orders, with a fair share apportioned in each case. The creation of a new road district was entrusted to the County Council, and it was not to be supposed that that body would allow an absurdity ; if it jlid there were means of dealing with the question, but whether right or wrong the principle should not be argued in such a case as this, where the order had been in force so long. His Honor said that in this action the plaintiff sued for special rates and arrears of rates on a property which prior to the severance of the district from the Kaiti district had been rated for special rates. Mr Nolan had addressed himself at length to several preliminaries, which His Honor did not think materially affected the ques- :

DIVORCE CASE. DIXON V. DIXON. John Dixon, of Murewai, petitioned for a divorce from Rebecca Dixon, Harry Robson being named as tho co-respondent. No defence was offered. Mr Nolan, for the petitioner, said that the marriage had taken place in January, 1891, at the Registry Office, Gisborne. The parties lived together for a number of years, and then separated. Later on, in December last, facts came to tho knowledge of the husband, and tlicso proceedings were instituted. Tho ovideuce offered would bo direct and very short. John Dixon, coach driver, residing at the Murewai, deposed : I am the petitioner in this case. I was married to the respondent on the 17th January, 1891, at the Registry Office, Gisborne, by certificate. I lived and co-liabitod with the respondent until 28th November, 1898. There was no issue by tho marriago. We lived at Murowai together for that period. After Nov., 1898, we separated by consent, our tempers not agreeing. There was a dc’ed of separation drawn up, under which I was to pay her 15s a week. I paid that for a considerable time. Afterwards it was reduced to 10s a week, which was paid up every two months until about a month before I found her misbolmving herself with Robson. Then I, ceased paying because I was advised by my lawyor not to pay further. On 21st Doccmber, 1900, I saw respondent and Harry Robson together as man and wife at a placo called Pakowhai. I had previously heard reports, and went and made the discovery. They wore in the yards near tho woolshed. I struck a match and saw who they were. I said, “ I’ve caught you now.” Ido not know of my own knowledge what became of them after that. I have had nothing to do with her since. Alfred Hepburn was with me that night. His Honor : You say she spoke in English—is sho a Maori ’? Witness : She is a half-caste. His Honor : And Harry Robson ? Witness: Ho is a half-caste.

His Honor: You say you had previously suspected this before you caught them ? Witness : Yes. His Honor : What was the separation order ? Witness: We could not agree, and I asked for a separation. His Honor: Had she any complaint against you ? Witness : Except that she said I drank a little some times. - • His Honor: Sho did not complain of cruelty or anything like that ? Witness : No, not that I know of. His Honor : You knew of no other complaint against you having been made by her ? Witness : No. Alfred Edward Hepburn, carter, of Gisborne, deposed that he was with Mr Dixon at Pakowhai on the 28rd of December last, and he corroborated the evidence of the previous witness as to what he had seen. By His Honor : I knew Dixon and his wife when they were living together. They did not live on very good terms. I cannot say whether it was the husband or the wife who was to blame. Mr Nolan said that he had direct evidence of all that he had alleged. He did not know if His Honor desired to hear more.

His Honor said that one act of adultery would be sufficient, but he would like to hear another witness.

Samuel Parker, a station hand, was called. Ho deposed that he and co-re-spondent had been at work together. He gave direct evidence of the misconduct of the parties, the woman having acted the part of the temptress to the co-respon-dent. His Honor granted a decree nisi, leave being given to apply for an order absolute within six months. “ I suppose there is no question of costs,” His Honor addod. Mr Nolan : No, it is not worth while, Your Honor. tion, because, under section 127 of the Counties Act, all special orders made by a County could only be impeached within a certain time. Still, he thought he ought not to pass over the points raised by Mr Nolan. The first was that the petition had not been signed by two-thirds of the ratepayers of the whole district, being signed signed by two-thirds of the resi- 1 dents of the smaller district which it was proposed to sever, and, no doubt, from the cases cited, it was plain. He could not read those decisions without being very much astonished. Certainly, no man ever sat on that Bench who was more careful than Mr Justice Johnston. But he did not agree with Mr Justice Johnston in this matter in his reasoning that j the petition need only be signed by two-thirds of the residents of a new district. The subsequent decision of Mr Justice Edwards had not been fully reported, but the probability was that hq had accepted the other decision without making enquiry into the matter. It might seem discourteous on his (Mr Justice Conolly’s) part to set his opinion against that of Mr Justice Johnston, but he would

be doing wrong if he did not express his opinion on the matter, which was that the petition should have been signed by twothirds of the ratepayers of the whole district. As to the severance and order, the I award was a very peculiar one, and if the latter part could be read verbatim it would be seen to be a very one-sided one. It was a most extraordinary thing that such a settlement should have been made, by I which the new road district instead of 1 taking half the burden, only took a fiftieth part. Though the award was such an 1 extraordinary one it had been duly approved of, and could not be gone baok on in these proceedings. Then, assuming | that the special order and the award were good, was the position of the ratepayer affected by that ? The security given to the Government was security given over the property of the Board as it then stood, and he must give judgment for the plaintiff. It was a most proper case todjring as a test one, and he would leave the parties to pay their own costs. Judgment was entered up for the i amount claimed, with tan per cent interest added.

As an indication of the keenness of the election contest in Greymouth, and the amount of canvassing that was done, the Grey River Argus states that the day before the election over £2O worth of half-penny stamps were sold over the post office counter to post “ invitation ” cards to the electors. Over 12,000 letters were delivered in the town, and those who were on the roll had cards sufficient sent to them to decorate a room. It was necessary to increase the postman's staff, and half-a-dozen boys were employed. The black art, as astrology was called in the olden days, is tabooed by the Postal Department. Accordingly, when letters are addreased to any person “ engaged in receiving money under pretence of foretelling future events,” his or her name is placed on a black list in the mail-room, and the correspondence is returned to the writers. Recently the attention of the Postal authorities was directed to the large number of letters which were being sent from Victoria to a man in Sydney, who advertised that he would in return for eighteenpence ! forward to the inquirers the name, age, and photograph of their future wives 'and husbands. The Sydney detective office was communicated with, and it has furnished the Deputy Postmaster-General with the subjoined report:—“The man has been living at his present address for the last three months. On taking the house ho stated that ho had recently come from Melbourne. He advertises very largely, and receives from 20 to 30 letters per mail. By yesterday afternoon’s mail he received 27 letters, mostly from Victoria, South Australia, and Tasmania, and one from Sydney. He calls himself the ‘ Celebrated Astrologer.’

He is over 60 years of age, and has a wife and two young children. He leads a very secluded and retired life. He is not known to the police, nor do the neighbors know anything about him.” Aii easy multiplication sum will show what a handsome profit the “Astrologer” must be making out of the credulity of his fellow men and women. We’ll sing God bless the Prince of Wales, Protect him from the storms and gales; And may his health for ever hold Free from either cough or cold, But Princes too, despite restraints, Are subject to all chest complaints. For which the remedy, tried and sure, Is W. E. Woods’ Great Peppermint Core.