SUPREME COURT.

Gisborne Times, Volume X, Issue 994, 14 September 1903, Page 4

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SESSIONS. (Before His Honor Mr Justice Cooper.) The Supremo Court session was continued on Saturday. SENTENCE DEFERRED. Nero Makarone, found guilty of theft, was brought up for sentence. Mr W. D. Lysnar asked that the case be adjourned until Wednesday, as he wanted to obtain evidence as regards character, and His Honor granted tho request. ■ DIVORCE. Elizabeth Hick ( petitioner, v. Francis Hick, respondent. Mr.L. Rees appeared for petitioner. Evidence was given in support of'tho petition by - Elizabeth Ann Hick and Robert Thomas Surinan (of Hawera). ' His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute in three months. Mr Rees.asked for an order for the custody of tho children by the marriage. His Honor said that as this had not been asked for in the petition, counsel could apply for custody when he applied for the decree to be made absolute, and could also ask for maintenance if respondent had failed to provide for the children.

Costs against respondent were £ls and disbursements. IN CHAMBERS. N ln the matter of tho will of Porcival Barker, Mr, C. A. DeLautour appeared in support of a petition by Augusta Barker under the Settled Land Act, 1886, in the matter of the-Whataupoko freehold estate, for consent to a sale by the said tenants for life of the said freehold estates. His Honor favoured the granting of the application, but wished to read the will before giving a decision. Annie Taylor (Mr W. D. Lysnar) v. W. F. Aeland Hood (Mr J. W. Nolan), claim of damages for alleged false and malicious publication, £4OO. Mr Lysnar applied to strike out those portions of the defence which referred to an agreement to a submission of the case to arbitration. His Honor said in face of the conflicting statements of the affidavits, the Registrar could not possibly ,do other than refuse to stay proceedings. Mr Lysnar admitted the case was referred to arbitration, but not that it was settled by payment of £4' Is. The latter was without authority. His Honor said that if in the trial it were shown by defendants that the matter had been settled at arbitration that was a settlement of the action, but if it could be proved by plaintiff that no settlement took place at arbitration, that did away with those portions of the defence relating to arbitration. The application for a stay of the proceedings was dismissed, and the case will come od for trial in Court this morning at 10 o’clock,