SUPREME COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1049, 28 May 1912, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL AND DIVORCE.

The following are the cases a et down for hearing at the preset.t sessions of the Supieme Court, which opened in Palmerston N, yesterday : .3;; P leged Douglas Robert Saxon Munro and Edmund Nelson Baigent alleged conspiring to defraud, p>nh°r(- Russel, alleged assault, bodily harm. Henry Dennett, esaping from custody, IN DIVORCE. Henry Russell Gaisford (Mr Cooper) v. Ethel Louise Gaisford (Mr Dolan), alleged adultery. Ethel Louise Gaisford (Mr Dolan) v, Henry Russel Gaisford (Mr Cooper), alleged adultery. undefended. Timothy O’Sullivan (Mr Co. per) v. Sarah Jane O’Sullivan and Jeremiah O’Donnell, alleged adultery. Francesca Marta Max (Mr lunes) v. John Max, alleged desertion. Clara Iskirka (Mr Cooper) v. John Iskirka, alleged desertion and drunkenness. John Francis Booth (Mr Tustiu) v. Bridget Booth and Frederick Coates, alleged adultery (damages

Isabella Grace Nation (Mr Cooper) v. Charles Cecil Nation, alleged adultery. Elizabeth Ann Partridge (Mr Innes) v. George Arthur Partridge, alleged habitual cruelty and drunkenness.

Bertha Lavinia Thompson (Mr Cooper) v. George Albert Thompson, alleged adultery. Sarah Ann Pickering (Mr Moore) v. Matthew Edward Pickering, alleged desertion. Johanna Eriedrika Baigeut (Mr Cooper) v. Andrew Baigeut, alleged desertion.

ORIGINATING SUMMONSES

Henry James Manson (Mr Innes) v. Andrew Guy and others, interpretation ol will of William Mausou, deceased.

Charles William Peach (Mr Moore) v. Harry Palmer and others.

John Arthur Dearlove (Mr Tosswill) v. Mads Christensen aud others, construction of agreement. Alice Maria Newdick (Mr Hankins) v. Thomas Powell and certain infant deteudauls, re estate of Robert Fowell, deceased, and re scheme for execution of trusts.

IN BANKRUPTCY

James Melville Croucher, motion for discharge.

James Ross (Mr Freeman Potts) motion for discharge. Frederick William Klein (Mr Cooper) motion for discharge.

Cnarlts William Blackbonrue (Mr Innes), motion for discharge. Harry iloltham (Mi Moore), motion for discharge. Edwin Pawson, to be further mentioned.

The Supreme Court sessions opened at Palmerston N. yesterday, belore Mr Justice Chapmau.

'i'uie bills were found m the cases of Andrew Wischuewsky, a charge of indecent assault ; Henry Dennett, escaping Irom custody at Taihape ; Douglas Robert Saxon Muuro and Edmund Nelson Baigent, conspiracy to defraud ; Robert Russell, assault causing actual bodily harm ; John Duncan, indecent assault.

Henry Dennett was charged that at Taihape he did escape from lawful custody. Mr O’Eeary (Wellington) appeared for accused, and entered a plea of guilty. xVlr Eoughnau, Crowu Prosecutor, pointed" out that there were a number of other convictions against accused. Accused was sentenced to three mouths’ imprisonment with hard labour, the sentence to be cumulative with the sentence he was at present serving. Robert Russell was charged with having assaulted Ellen Russell so as to cause her actual bodily harm.

Dr. Hall, Feilding, stated that he had attended Mrs Russell, and described the nature of her injuries. Ellen Russell, wife ol accused, said she came home on the night in question between 10 and ix o’clock. Tuc door .vas locked, and she climbed through the window. Her husband asked her where she had been, and she said she had been enjoying herself. She also said that he must have been drunk, or he would have heard her knocking. Witness asked at this stage if it was necessary to say more, as she did not wish to give evidence against her husdand.

His Honor stated when the Court resumed that accused’s wife had quite clearly objected to give evidence against her husband. No doubt she would have given evidence had he (his Honor) wished to compel her to do so. She had given her reason for not wishing to give evidence. It had been decided in the Court of Appeal in ryio, that the wife could not be compelled to give evidence against her husband in a case where an assault had been committed upon herself, though she was a competent witness it she did not raise personal objections. Since then the same question had been several times betore the law courts in England, and the House oi Eords had decided that though' a woman was a competent witness, if she chose not to give evidence the Court could not compel her to do so. There might be a little difference between the English legislature and ours, but the result was the same. There were obvious

reasons for this. The position of the present witness was that she was entitled to claim personal Immunity from giving evidence against her husband. His Honour would not, therefore, order her to give evidence as she was entitled to take up the position she had. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty, and accused was discharged.