Untitled

Gisborne Times, Volume XVIII, Issue 1445, 4 May 1905, Page 4

Ho attested the mark of plaintiff to that dooument. lopa Te Hau, husband of plaintiff, and Mr Ferris were present. Mr Ferris was in the employ of Nclan and Skeet. Mr Nolan was husband of defendant. Witness did not understand the language. An agreement was produced signed by lopa To Hau and Te Ira Ranginui. Tbo agreement was explained to witness, end the transfer was read over and signed by plaintiff and lopa. It was interpreted by Mr Ferris. By Dr Findlay: Witness understood that plaintiff and bor. husband, lopa, understood the transfor. There was nothing irregular as far as witness know. On January 18th witness had to leave for Hastings, and the parties came to him and said that before he roturucd the money would be ready for payment. Witness then went through hiß books and noted that everything was right. He was satisfied that Te Ira had other lands sufficient for hor. Witness knew nothing against equity and good conscience in the transaction. It might bo that more oould have been got for the land. Ab far as he knew it was a fair transaction. His Honor said that no fraud had been shown. It was ncoossary for Mr Finn to complete his story by calling Mr Brooking, Registrar of the Native Land Court. Mr FiDn declined to call Mr Brooking, and His Honor allowed the case to proceed. Ira Baoginui, plainliff, slated that she owned section 3in Karalta block 5. She remembered signing a dooument hefore Judge Jones. She was told by Mr Ferris that it was the transferring of a mortgage to Mrs NolaD. She did not know that it referred to the To Karaka block. She had received no money for tho Karnka land. Witness know Charlo3 Ferris. Ho was not hor ogcnt and she had not appointed anyone to sell her land. She mortgaged the land the time lopa went to gaol. She did not know the nature of the document she signed before Judge Jones. Money had been paid witness, but she had been told by Mr Ferris to hand it over to lopa. By Mr Findlay : She did not know what a transfer of land was. She transferred one aero of land to her husband pro“ vious to this. The dooument had not been explained to her. It was' impossible to make her understand any, document. The cheque was given her. by the J.P., but she waß told by Mr Ferris to give it back to lopa. A man named John Morris showed her a plan of how the land was to bo sold by Mr Nolan. The Judge ; Why did you allow your husband to remove your house off your land ? She asked her husband to allow the house to remaiD, and if he wanted a house at the other place to build one. She thought her husband had a right to remove the house. They were both one. The Judge : If they were both one, why did she bring this action ? Witness : Because I did not get any money. When Morris told her that the land was to be sold she put in an objection. Her husband advised her to go to Mr Finn. At the time her husband got her to put in an objection he had reoeived the cheque. The reason she objected to the sale was that sufficient money had not been paid and she had not received the money herself. By Mr Finn : She had a quarrel with her husband last month and lelt him. This closed the oase for plaintiff. His Honor gave judgment for defendant with ocsts as on a claim for £llOO,

DIVORCE. Elizabeth Smith, petitioner (Mr W. D. Lysnai-), v. Abbotsford Smith, respondent, application for divorce and alimony. Mr Lyenar said there were throe matters for consideration—custody of the children, divorce, and alimony. The custody of the children must be considered before the action for divoroß was taken. His Honor said the divorce action must go first. Mr Lyenar outlined the evidence he would produce, and called petitioner, who gave evidenco of their marriage in 1885 and the subsequent relationship which existed between her and her hußband, until respondent left home with Miss Bain. The unhappy domestic affairs have already been ventilated in the local Court on more than one occasion, and the evidence does not require reproduction. Much evidence irrelevant to tho oase was hoard.

His Honor stated that admissions wore ody evidence against the person making them. They , were not legal ~ evidence. Ho wished they would get on to some legal evidence. Isabella Cairns stated that she knew Mr Smith and Miss Bain as Mr and Mrs Graham, living at her place at Woodville. The latter made provision for herself and the child while her husband was away in Gisborne. Dr Scbumoohor stated that on March 29th Smith came to ask him to attend on a person. Mr Lysnar : On whom ? Witness : Am I bound to answer the question, Your Honor ? His Honor : If it is a question between doctor and patient of course you are not. You don’t read the reports, Mr Lysnnr, or you would know that the very same questicn was raised in Now Plymouth. You are quite right, doctor, in raising the question. It was the duty of a doctor to do so if he knew the law. Evidence was also given by Frederick Clayton, Charles Catton, James Doyle, Walter Cairns (Woodville), and Margaret Annie McKinstry. His Honor remarked that very little satisfactory evidence had been got from the witnesses. On Mr Lysnat’s application His Honor suspended a decree until alimony wob granted. _ Ho considered that petitioner was entitled to a decreo nisi.