Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. This Day. [Before His Honor Mr Justice Johnston and a oommon jury.] The Court opened at 11 a.m. AEMBTEONG V ABMSTEONG. In this case John Armstrong the elder was plaintiff, and James Armstrong the defendant. The plaintiff's declaration alleged that Isabella Armstrong', being under twenty-one years and tho daughter of plaintiff, was on or about the 11th Maroh, 1881, unlawfully enticed by the defendant, who is the son of plaintiff and brother to the said Isabella Armstrong, from the service of the plaintiff, whereby he lost the services of the said Isabella Ar r strong The plaintiff therefore sought to reoover the sum of £SOO.

The defendant pleaded to the declaration of plaintiff (1) That he denied all the material allegations. (2.) That the said Isabella Armstrong was not the servant of the plaintiff as alleged.

Mr Joynt appeared for the plaintiff; Mr Harper, with him Mr Martin, for the dofondant.

Mr Joynt, before opening the case, applied for an amendment of the reoord by inserting a count for harboring. Mr Harper objected as this was a totally different cause of action.

His Honor said the question was whether the evidence on both sides would be 'prepared to meet this count.

After some argument, His Honor said the best way would be for Mr Joynt to open his case, and at the conclusion apply for leave to add a count for harboring. Mr Joynt agreed to this being done, and proceeded to open his case. It appeared that the plaintiff is father of the defendant, and the cause of action was who should have the custody of a girl of thirteen. The residences of the parties adjoined at Waddington, near Sheffield. The defendant was married, and had a family, and had on several occasion a requested his mother to allow one of his sisters to come to his house to assist his wife. This, however, was refused. On the night of the 11th March the girl Isabella left the house of her father and went to the house of the defendant. In the morning the mother went for her and asked her to come home. The child wan preparing to do so, but was prevented by the defendant, who put the mother outside. The father next essayed to get the ohild, and took with him a witness. The father asked Isabella to come home, but she refused. The plaintiff went over to the girl to get her, but the son interfered and put him out of the houße. The plaintiff then consulted a solicitor, and a demand was made for the child. No reply was received to this, and a writ was issuod. In reply to this a letter was received from the solicitors of the defendant, stating that there need be no litigation ; that the ohild would be returned, but that the defendant denied that he had prevented the plaintiff from getting the ohild, or that he had enticed her away. The plaintiff waited some time for the return of the child, but this had not taken plaoe. Mr Joynt had prooeeded some way with the opening of the case, when His Honor suggested that it would be much better if the oase could be settled amicably. It was a most painful one, and he thought if it could be arranged, a settlement between the parties would be advisable.

After some conversation, in the course of which the learned counsel on both sides agreed with his Honor as to the advisableness of a settlement.

His Honor said that he thought the best way would be for him, by consent of both sides, to privately examine the girl. This was agreed to, and the girl went into his Honor's private room. His Honor on returning into court said that he was sorry to say that he could not see his way clear to make any suggestion. Some further argument followed, and ultimately Mr Joynt applied to his Honor to allow the case to stand over till next session in order to see if a settlement could not be arrived at.

Mr Harper consented to this being done. His Honor said that the jury would be discharged by consent. The jury were then accordingly discharged, and the Court adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow, when the case of Frank v Hobbs and Goodwin will be taken.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/GLOBE18811024.2.15

Bibliographic details

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2358, 24 October 1881, Page 3

Word Count
728

SUPREME COURT. Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2358, 24 October 1881, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2358, 24 October 1881, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert