SUPREME COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 14 June 1930, Page 6

SUPREME COURT

OREYAIOUTH, June 1-1

The* quarterly session ol the Supreme C ourt was held yesterday, llis Honour, Justine Adams, being on the Bench.

IMCFOH AI.ATTX K DETENTION

Douglas Alfred Smi.li appeared for seutenee, on charges of breaking and entering the premises of Thomas Tviely, tailor; find Kettle Brothers, merchants, on June Lst., and stealing goods tlierefrom. ilis Honour imposed a sentence of reformative detention, not exceeding twelve months,. commencing from that tittle.

DIVORCES CHANTED.*

i.tmrel Ifazeliline (Mi - Joyce) applied for ti dissolution of ner marriage with Charles J!;i<ieldine. Petitioner stated that she was married to respondent on November 25, 1<)22. She lived wit!) him until Novvemher 1, 192(1, when ti septiration order was math*, which, w.-.s still in force.

Ilis Honour granted a '.decree nisi it he made absolute in three enu.'j.s respondent to pay 'costs.

A similar prteitihn. was made .by Jot sephiue Haleheipr, Avho was'. reprhsented hy Air Joyce. ''

Petnioner .stated that -site marriedWall er Ktit* helor nip Jujic 24, 11)19,-at; Blenheim.- -She Hived with her husband •util February, 1 11*2(5,when h'cr rhiis!>jind deserted her,, leaving her with out support’.-' There find been:,one child hy the marriage., which she had retained custody of. A maintenance order had been made out against respondent in 1920.

A decree nisi was granted to he made absolute after tlree months, pe1/tinner to have custody of the child *nd respondent to pay costs of the ease.

HOTEL CASE

The following claims w-re made by Julius , Lutz, owner of the,,, Jtoyaiilntel, ‘against’ .tile licensee, ivre'deriqk Wi| pains : (1) J* or. possession -of tti'e land ; (2) the sum of £312,.' with iiir terest at six per cent, per unnun) for eyeidue .monthly instalments;- (3) 'the sum of £33 Us 8(1 and interest at 10 per cent, per.annum, from May 15 to the ' ale of judgment, - for fire premiums

.aid by plaintiff; (4) £IOO damages ••'or breach of covenant iiv regard -to painting the lintel, with interest; (5) rent or mesne profits at the rate of '2! a month, from AI ay 1, 1930 to the '-•i-o of judgment; (6) sud>further or other relief as plaintiff was entitled to. ■ 1 ... .'. "~ - ' . i In giving, liis dec.is h > nltis Wo n opc ■aid "Hint in such eases a tenant could apply for relief from Forfeiture, and it was tin* duty of the Court if reasonaide grounds were brought- forward to grant such relief. In this case both plaintiff and defendant claimed hardship hy the terms of contract. The broaches of covenant in regard to the rent wa-s not so serious, as it. find been shown that the- property in the hotel would cover this ; the non-payment of rates was - more serious, while the failure', to keep •up the insurance -preni'i'Tins’'was quite serious, and in some "ircumstances would make the Court locate adversely. However, the appli-

-••! had sworn that lie could obtain ".naneial hacking, and under these m--eumstanees relief should he granted if c-rtnin conditions were obsen ed. The conditions imposed hy His Honour were; Cl) That one month’s ’•'•”t naid within seven days: . (’?) that within one month applicaut pay to

lessee all arrears of rent, with in +

est at six per eent. per annum: <‘ I '' +'• t apnlieant pay the sum of G'34/fVS as insurar.ee premiums paid hy lessor. A-: ih.' interest at ten per cent, per •AfrinfiVn : • A'A applicant' to. .pay the cost of the motion £1 o/15/- and, £3l. .'JO "

, e.ost.' hf action with } disbursements ; V 'd.:,j; /The relief, granted on th'-se roiiditions to he serupulously.observed.