DOMINION ITEMS.

Hokitika Guardian, 8 April 1927, Page 2

DOMINION ITEMS.

fry TKi.t-.nitAi’i! - run cress association.) POLICE RAID SUCCEEDS. i t:ti ding. April 7. A police raid on a ‘'two-tip” school, made mi Ft bruary ]!)tii. was fully described before Air .1. L, Stout, S.M.. to-day. It was stated the raid took place, on a Sunday, tho school being situated on the bit lilt of the Oroua River, opposite to Johnston Park.

Constables McCall and Pyke hid themselves in the vicinity tit 0.39 a.m. 'lhey waited till 1.30 p.m. 'I lien the school began to assemble. They watched for an hour, and then approached. The men were only fifteen yards away when seen, and then the players bolted. Mr Cullinan for the defence, alleged that the ringside was not visible from a public place, hut the Magistrate said he was satisfied from the police and other evidence that it was. 'I he accused, who were mostly freezing workers, were till fined £3 each, namely, Richard Benge, John Evans, E. 11. Cull uni. James Reddy, Thomas Fogarty, Francis Hefl’eriiian, John Ilomigan, Richard Jones, Leslie Kirkcaldie, Robert Larsen, John Alansfield, and James Vovle.

A UNIQUE CASE. ’ WELLINGTON, April 7. What amount should compensate a husband for the alienation of his wife’s affections when such alienation is brought about by her friendship for another man? There are only two such cases in record in the English Law Reports. The first arose in 1745. and the second in 1904. However there _ have been several such cases recently ’ in Canada. In the Magistrate’s Court here to-day, before -Mr Hewitt, sueli an action was brought by Herbert Denham, a carrier of .Johnsonville, claiming the sum of £IOO against J-ouis 0. 1 Lebire, another carrier, who is resident about live miles away. ' The statement of claim set forth that ’ the defendant, without just cause, had so persuaded, or enticed, plaintiff’s wife, Olive Louisa Denham to live apart from, him, and had alienated hci ' affections, so that he was deprived of ' the benefit- of her society. “There is no suggestion of misconduct,” said Mr Boys (for the plaintiff). The principle of the law was that, if a man enticed another maiiT wife to leave him, he was entitled to damages. In this case, the wife did not leave her home, but Canadian cases showed that this did not enter into the legal question. Ih“ plaintiff was entitled to damages. t la- only question was the amount. The defendant was a frequent visitor to the house, and the wife had become estranged from her husband. The defendant had perhaps caused this unwittingly. After the ease had proceeded some time, Mr Hewitt remarked that nothing would be gained by going on with it. He suggested a settlement out of court, which eventually was done. Defendant stated he would give an under taking not to visit the house again particulars of accident. ASHBURTON, April 6. Particulars of Timpson’s accident show that he fell sixty feet. Owing to the rough nature of the <oun iy the rescue party who found him after midnight had a difficult task m bringing him many miles into a station near the head of Raagitata river. It was 21 hours before they were clear of the mountains, and the members were exhausted on reaching the station. The oatient did not reach the hospital until nearly forty hours after the accident.