SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5497, 8 November 1878, Page 5

SUPREME COURT—IN BANCO.

Thursday, November 7. (Before Mr. Justice Gillies.) The Court sat at 11 a.m. DIVE V. PETHEBICK AND DIVE V. OWEN. Mr, Allan meutioned these two cases, and said as they both turned on the same point one decision would be sufficient for both. Thi re had been a partnership between the parties, and disputes followed. There was a dissolution, and under one of the clauses au arbitration was held, and an award made in favor of olaintiff. This award defendant resisted, and aad demurred to the declaration. It was now sought to remove the demurrer into the Court of Appeal. The Court ordered the demurrer to be removed into the Court of Appeal, IN RE 8. J. HILL. Mr. Brandon, junior, moved for an order of the Court committing Samuel John Hill for a breach of an injunction of the Court. It appeared that in June, 1878, an injunction had Peen issued at the suit of Fanny Hill, directing the de endant to respect a deed of separation between himself and the plaintiff and to absolutely desist from molesting and disturbing her in her business or in her movements. Since that injunction had been issued he had on 'many occasions disturbed her and annoyed her, and injured her in her business by his conduct, as set out with particularity in a number of affidavits. These affidavits were read, and from them it appeared that soon after the issue of the injunction the defendant had commenced a systematic persecution of his wife, entering, the house by foroe, and when ejected interfering with her customers, especially with servants seeking places, and mistresses seeking servants, who wished to avail themselves of the registry office kept by Mrs. Hill. He also endeavored to entice the children away from home, and failing in this,' threatened to carry them away by force, and to "do” f»r the plaintiff. One Sunday afternoon he put his threat into execution, so far as to carry off the eldest boy Ernest ; but the child was rescued by force. This state of affairs continued for some time, the defendant going to the Wairarapa for a few days when he heard that a summons had been taken out against him, but returning and renewing his persecution when the time for the service of the summons had expired. On tho night of the 20th October, when Mrs. Hill was in bed, ho effected an entrance to the house by one of the upper windows, and after undressing himself entered his wife’s room. She ran downstairs, and seated herself on a box near the window, and during the melee he picked up a small hatchet and ft mrished it over her head, saying he would murder her. When she attempted to {attract assistance by screaming he gagged her mouth, and so prevented her cries being heard. About 5 o’clock she escaped from him, and running upstairs locked herself in her own room. He endeavored to break in the door, while she prepared to lower her daughter from the window, to obtain assistance, but he became aware of her intentions and went below to stop the child Whm a man came along Mrs. Hill appealed to him to assist her, but the defendant restrained him from entering tho house by threats. So >n afterwards a policeman appeared in sight, aqd the defendant then ran away, taking the key of tho front door with him. , Mr. Brandon urged that these affidavits disclosed sufficiently gross• breaches of the injunction to warrant* the committal.

His Honor remarked that there evidently had been gross breaches of the injunction. There was no doubt about that; but he had doubts as to what form the commitment ought to take, whether it was to bo for a specified term or continuously. Mr. Brandon bad not looked into that point, but presumed it would be until he had purged his contempt.

His Honor : How can he do th t ? Mr. Brandon : He might express regret for what he has done.

His Honor: There has clearly been a systematic defiance of the orders of the Court, and personal assaults upon the plaintiff too. Mr. Brandon; Yea; it has been a systematic breach. He has gone away a few days at a time, and then returned to annoy her. Indeed several times we have endeavored to serve a notice upon him, but somehow he managed to get away either to the Wairarapa or to Nelson. He has been served on this occasion though, and does not appear. His Honor : The only difficulty 1, see is about the committal.

Mr. Chapman, as amicus curias , suggested that a person committed under these circumstances would remain in prison till ho moved for bis discharge, and then the Court would consider what it should do. Perhaps it would order him to pay costs, and release him on a promise of amendment being given. Sometimes tho Court postponed a case and kept the offender in custody. In that way a man who had been guilty of some offence in a Court in England had been kept in prison two years. His Honor repeated that in bis opinion there had been a very gross breach of the injunction, but said he did not like tho idea of sending a man to gaol indefinitely. Ho should take time to look into the matter. Was there any fear of further molestation ? Mr. Brandon said the plaintiff feared it, and the defendant was still in town. His Honor : Perhaps these proceedings may deter him. I should like to look into the matter, because 1 should not like to make an order which might afterwards bo found to be an erroneous one ; especially as 1 have bad nothing to do with the matter heretofore. After some further remarks from counsel, tho case was ordered to stand over.