SUPREME COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 March 1928, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

FRIDAY, -UAUC'IL (lie to tv Tlis Honour, Hr Justice Adams). His Honour took liis seat at lit..So | a.tit. IX divorce. I Elizabeth Ellen Oliver v. G-urge William Oliver, petition for divorce. Mr Murdoch appeared tor petitioner. Defendant did not appear. Petitioner gave evidence that -he was married on 19th May. LSiJ-l, at Hokitika. Lived with him at Hokitika. Kttmara. and (Ireytnotitii. Two eliildren. one lmrn in ISVIo and one in lt-'P7. Site prodirt-eil a separation order granted her in Aniil. >9-1- sl >e liad since lived in Christchurch and laid not seen her husband since she I had lived with him. Edward Ernest Oliver, son of petitioner. gave evidence in support. Decree nisi granted, to lie made absolute alter three months. respnm.ent to pay petitioner's costs. Matilda Ellen Crop]. v. Richard Crop.p, petition for divorce. Air Murdoch for petitioner. Mr Joyce tor respondent. the latter admitting th; facts. , Matilda Elizabeth Cropp deposed she lived at Hokitika. She was married at Hokitika, on 17th January feof) to Richard Cropp. of Ernie rnngi. Lived at Koiterangi and hat four children, A deed of separatioi

was .agreed to in 192 d an it was still in force. A decree nisi was granted to !>o made absolute in three months, re- , spondcnt to pay petitioner’s costs on lowest scale. IN CAN K ItrPTOY. In re Alary Jane Bergstrom, creditors petition to declare her bankruptcy. Air Alnrdoch for defendant, Air Kleoch for petitioning creditor. (irillen and Smith. The hearing was removed to Greymouth for hearing on Monday next, by mutual consent. VNOPPOSIC1) APPI.rC.VTTON. ,-e AYilliam Kennedy Henderson, application for discharged. Air Alurdoch for applicant. ! Discharge granted. j OPPOSKD API’I.IC'ATION. in re Thomas Arthur Howard, an- , application for discharge. Mr Aluifor applicant. Air Murdoch for an approved creditor, Sydney 0. Holley opposed the application. Thomas Arthur Howard, deposed he was of South Spit... a sawmillhand. At. a meeting of creditors he was piesent. He did not know the Assignee hud requested the sawmill owners to pay a portion of what ho had earned. His wages for 1920 were £24 1 IC'. 2d. X„ 1927 £224 12s Id. He also sold sleepers £«. Tn January. 1928. sold sleepers £8 10s. He did not know his total approved creditors were bipf'' 10s fid. Before his meeting of creditors he lost £29. His wife one day made a record catch of 8 tins of whitebait and got £l2 for them. Ho could j not nay the creditor anything. He lost the £2O after the court ease. His Honour to witness:—Yon stated in evidence that von filed Because you were threatened with a judgment summons. Was that true? Witness: —No. He was told that they were going to issue a distress warrant. . His Honour:— What were you afraid ° f Witness :—He was told hv John Bell, his step-son-in-law. that an attachment would he made on his a ages. This was tnltl at a haku on the Alahiimpuu bridge after the assault verdict was given. He could not muse any offer for Holley. He doubted Mr Alurdoeh’s statement that his wile and children had earned £7O to £BO each year from whitebait. To Air Joyce:— Tie knew tlmi if an attachment order was granted on his wages, he could only get in the vicinity of £2 a week. He had three children. His wife was under the doctor’s orders and had been operated on ns -the result of a strain since hast whitebait season. His mil! was closed down at present owing to wan! of orders. To his Honour:...He filed because I.C had been afraid of an attachment order being made. 11 he had not tiled he would have tried lo pay his debts. Hi',had not paid any ot his creditors. He was not prepu'ed to make any offer to the man he fail injured, lie owed nothing since the bankruptcy. Sydney llollev deposed lie was opposing the upplicat ion for discharge. He was plaintill in an assault case against Howard. Heard Howard tell Mr .Murdoch at tin' meeting of creditors that lie had not enquired at the paper office if his lost £29 had been found. Witness denied having taken part in any haku alter the result el the assault case was made known. ChaiMes .John King. Sergeant of Police and Inspector of Fisheries, deposed the Howard family lmd at least three whitebait stands on Malimapuu Greek. \|i- Murdoch submitted that the bankrupt was endeavouring to use the Court so that the man whom he had assaulted would get nothing that was line to him. It was essentially a case were the lianknipt has nothing p> say in his favour. Mr Joyce said Urn bankrupt had a wife and Hire" children, the wife being ill and one daughter in had h.'allh Tlir matter "a " , " 1 ' l " 1 ' | i 1 loiiour lo decide. His 11noour said lie did nm believe the story of Howard in connection with Mr' Bell, lie was satisfied Howard prepar'd in advance to .h-leal mv jndgment in favour ot the ohjiitii£_ creditor. Of a total of £199. £'»;> was represented by the objecting creditor. If bankrupt had been an honest man he woufd have been able m discharge his debts and i elicit himself of the stigma that is on him. His Honour stated lie would grant the application. He would adjourn tie- hearing to next fitting to enable the debtor to make a proposal, and if none were mad" of a satislaetorv nature, an order will bo made for’ the entry of a judgment a£"ii.M the debtor. APPLICATION AD.IOI >'M- ■>• l n re AYilliam Morris, application for discharge. Mr Murdoch for bankrupt. able particulars of bankrupt’s eurn- | i n gs to he supplied, his Honour remarking that the position did not appear to ho entirely satisfactory. TN CHAMUKItS. [„ ,-e Hokitika Gas Company. Ud. Petition for confirmation of alteration of memorandum and Articles ot soeiatimi. 'Mr Park for petitioner. Application granted. This concluded the business set down and the Court rose at 12.19 p.m. TTH’ITSDAY, MABCII 1. CL AIM FOP H AMAGFM. Carl J. Hondo v. Cecil Authemnii. Air Murdoch for plaintill'. Mr Pilkm.g ton for defendant. A claim b.r at injunction and damages £-■>■ The Court adjourned at 1 !>•>"■ am resumed at 2.1 • > p.m. .lames Peterson deposed he was a fanner at Harihaii. He knew the land in question for over ten yen's. Before Autheman went there Hem o s land was dry land whereas afterwards the water caused it to he very muddy ' almost across Honde’s land, some t. to 8 or 9 feet wide. This area «’■> ~ sort of wati .--course in ll<md tunes. He did not think there was any imcessitv for Autheman to use -o mue i water for his milking opmatmos. Hende's stone ernssmg was made kcau.se the land had become boggy-. ■ was necessary owing to the pai d > k bein''- wet. Hondo was deprived id the strip" of land for cropping owing M l it Wing wet. He would have mi - .rated the damage by turn mg oil the water when milking wits Immbed Since the water was cut oil the laud lias again become bard. To Air Pilkington:—ln witness own milking shed be did not have .my ti-mile with the water, as In ■ use d it while milking and then turned U His' Honour —Assuming that dem .!r:isu,n::i tS pb, intiff’should have to consider what steps he should take to minimise Hu damage? . t ,, Witness: - In his opinion the ' was allowed to run unnecessarily, am this water ran on to Hende > and caused the damage doserihtd. This was the case tor phunuiP Air Pilkington said he too* it (: tse was reduced to the .p.est.ou e whether the water had l*en allowo to run unnecessarily on to plaintiff b Cecil Autheman deposed he was fanner residing until recently at Ha. h a r i He owned the section nd].i.n.i. ! Hen'de having bought it from plan -1 ti ff. Plaintiff gave permission to coi l | „ect with water supply. Had t i pipe in the shed orer a tub. A t*

was ;nvl;\v:ml to put in. so used a plug to stop the water. When he had finished operations lie put in the pine and there would he only a trickle escaping. He would not like to have to depend on 20 gallons of water for a milking and the cleaning up niterwards. The water has not been flowing from his pipe night and day. Hondo more than once complimented witness on his clean shed. \N as present when Hondo was cultivating the ground. He knocked the banks of tlio creek down. This caused a wider spread of the water. In ordinary times there was water in the creek.

caused by soakage from the higher ground. There was no pressure in the water pipes. To Mr Murdoch:—Hondo in giving his evidence stated what was not correct when he said the water was running continuously. He had no idea why Hende put in the. stone crossing. There was no necessity for it. The land was no different to what it was years before. Re-examined :—The water from his shed was not sufficient to make Hondo's land boggy. Ernest Kirby deposed be was a farmer of Harihari. Some seven and a Jialf years ago be examined the farm of Authoman. Found the creek at the back of the milking shed wet and boggy. It was worse in wet weather. There was no difference in its condition nine or ten months ago to that of seven or 8 years ago. There was not sufficient water coming from defendant’s milking shed to make the land boggy over seven chains away. Saw the water pipe stopped by knocking in a plug. Tn his own shed lie let the water run day and night. To Air Murdoch :—For two years lie was not on Hende’s land. He did not say anything about Hende's cultivation. He was at Autlieman’s two or three times a week and usually' found him in the shed. The water was never running when it was not being used. To his Honour: —He did not take any notice of the. water, when lie used to visit defendant’s shed. After Counsel Iliad addressed the Court at some length. His Honour in reply to the question for an injunction said he was not prepared to make an ■injunction, if defendant undertook not to repeat the offence. He stated that he found for plaintiff on the main facts. Defendant’s counsel gave an undertaking not to repeat the offence. His Honour continued that lie was satisfied that the story of plaintiff' and his witnesses was in substance true. He was satisfied that defendant had been in the habit of allowing it to run more frequently than lie himself admits. There was a strong probability that in using the water as lie did it was done without realising that it would do any damage. It: was regrettable that having once made up his mind that the olaintiff’s comnlaint was ft reasonable one, which the defendant acknowledged by letter, that lie did not stick to bis purposePlaintiff appeared to have acted quite reasonably and defendant could onlv blame himself. His Honour continued that ho would not grant an injunction. accepting defendant’s undertaking not to do anything Or permit anything to Ik* done to cause any tinproper discharge of water on to plaintiff’s land. On fho question of damages ho did not think they were very large, and plaintiff was very fair on this question. He would award £ls damages, with costs and disbursements on the lowest scale, to be fixed by the Registrar. The Court adjourned at. 5.15 p.m.