SUPREME COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8924, 18 September 1907, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

PALMERSTON SITTING

Tho sittings of the Supremo Court wero omtia.ij.l yostardiy before Mr Justice Cooper.

IN DIVORCE.

Satherley v. Satheulpt.

Tho first case called yesterday was oiio" in which John Satherley applied against, Ellen Satherley for the restitution of conjugal rights. Mr Fitzherbert appeared for petitionee' and Mr limes for respondent; Edward Collins gave evidence to' having served a notice on Mrs Satherley; A copy was read by Mr Fitzherbert. John Satherley stated ho married Ellen Satherley in March, 1887. His wife left him iu 1903. They had not had any serious difficulties. Ho had written to his wife on mors than one occasion since she-had lett him but had received no answer to the letters. Witness had never been guilty ot any cruelty towards her; Witness was cross-examined at so the' length by Mr Innes. Annie Brabyn gave evidence as to.what she knew of tho domestic relations existing between petitioner and respondent. W itness thought there were no serious faults on either side, tho differences that arose were due simply to temperamout. Further evidence was given on tho same

point. His Honor said that ho thought the real difficulty had been that the parties wore uusuited'to' each other. A decree nisi was made for the restitution of conjugal rights, to be given effect to in one month from the date of service. LITTLEW OO Dv. TE HADKE CO.

This was a case in which tho plaintiff Henry William Littlewood (Mr Beero) sued the To Hauke Co. (Mr Baldwin) for expenses incurred in the removal of certain goods from the rail head near Taihape to a place beyond Tokaanu. The sum disputed was £l3O 9s 7d, Henry Littlewood stated that he was a stablekeeper at Taihape. He remembered having an interview with Mr Nannsted at the Working Men’s Club iu Palmerston. The interview was with reference to some caitage which he (Mr Nannsted) wanted clone. Witness gave him an estimate which he thought was at the rate of about 2s Cd per ton per mile, Two other gentlemen were present at the time the matter was being discussed. Mi? Nannsted not made any arrange-* ments with him at that time. IVitness went back to Taihape that day. It rained heavily after he got back and ho then instructed a clerk in his employ to write to Mr Nannsted informing him that he could not do tho work at the price previously stated as the roads were so heavy and in such a bad state. Heavy carting would bo practically impossible. Mr Nannsted came up to see witness somo time in January. They had a discussion on tiis subject, the upshot of which was that witness said he would not do the work unless ho wore paid by the day at tho ruling rates. Mr Nannsted then decided to allow witness to proceed with the work on thoso terms. Witness’ wife was present when the conversation took place. Witness subsequently removed Mr Nannsted’s goods, as he was required to do. Ha picked up the goods at a place called the 62-40 shed, a place 63 miles and 40 chains from Marton.

Further evidence was given, setting forth tho details of the transaction. Witness charged £3 a day per team. Ho had charged more than the pre-arranged price on account of tho roughness of tho work, which was very trying to both horses and men. Witness was cross-examined at considerable length by Mr Baldwin as to the ruling prices and loads on various kinds of roads.

Further evidence was given for the plaintiff by Edward Dokes, clerk in charge of the Public Works Department. His Honor then suggested an adjournment to enable Counsel to confer and see if some arrangement could be agreed upon. If not he would continue the hearing on Wednesday, at 10 a.m.