SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XXIII, Issue 229, 9 October 1901, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CIVIL SITTINGS. Tuesday, October Bth,—Before His Honour Mr Just'ce Oonolly. DAMAGES FOE ASSAULT. Wright v. Tomsitt—Mr Southey Baker, for the defendant, stated at the commencement of the sitting yesterday that a i ettlemenfc had been arrived at in which his client willingly conourred. On behalf of his client, he expressed deep regret for the assault, and asked that judgment be entered against bis client for £125, and costs on the lowest scale. Mr Samuel, having expressed on behalf of his client an agreement to the settlement, judgment was entered accordingly, his Honor remarking that the settlement wasextremely ere Stable : to counsel, A CASE SETTLED. t On the application of Mr Samuel, . the osQ of Moore v. Houston was - struck out, the claim for damages made ! by Miss M. Moore for being thrown ; from a horse owing to defendant's cattle . straying on the road having been settled by arbitration, DIVORCE!. | Williams v. Williams and Lake.— J This was a petition by the husband for : divorce on the ground of adultery with < Lake. Mr Kerr conducted the case on 1 behalf of petitioner, and Mr Samuel, \ instructed by Messrs Young and Tripe I of Wellington, appeared for the resl pondent and co-respondent. ! The evidence of the petitioner, ' George Williams, a farmer on the . Maude-road, was that he was married , to respondent, and that there were five " children. After Like came to live with them there we e s veral quarrt-ls ! over him. Oae night, he went to bed ' leaving hi; wife and children with Lake in the kitchen, and from a conI versation he overheard his suspicions , were aroused. His wife accused witness of eavesdropping. Finally, on, . June 27th, 1891, he nccu c od Lake and i his wifi* of improper conduct, and told ' his wi ; . that if she and Lik« loved oueanother, thev had batter clear out. Lake replied that Le would clear out in \ the morning, and witness's wife said if Lake went, she would go. After witt ness and his wife went to bed, bis wife i got up, and witness followed shortly after, and found her sitting with Lake 1 on the sofa in the kitchen. He went hack to bed without saying anything, | Next morning hn told Like the sooner . he cleared out the hotter, and offered to take him away. Witness's wife was ; present, and s«id the place was as much . hers as his, and Lake could' stay if he liked. Lake replied, and witnessed : threatened to break his head. After--1 wards he carted Lake's belongings to New Plymouth. Like admitted that 1 matters had been going oh wrongly for four or five months. When witness , returned home, his wife said she was going as she wanted to live with Lake. She (aid this was the second affair, and it would always be thrown up at her, and therefore she had batter clear out. Witness took that to mean that when he married her she had a child which whs not his, She subsequently told witness she was going to live with Lake. His wife went away about August 13tb, and sued him for maintenance, but dropped the proceedings. Hid not lived with his wife since she left home. Mr Samuel rose to cross examine witness. His Honor asked in what capacity Mr Samuel appeared, ae tbe defence had been withdrawn. Mr Sam n 1 explained his position, but nfter lookiug over the new rules, bis Honor said that the defence having been withdrawn, he must rule that Mr Samuel had no locus standi except on the question of costs, «r custody of the children. His Honor read over to witness tbe answer filed by respondent to the petition, and in reply to que3t ons by his Honor, witness denied tbe allegations in the answer, Decree nisi granted. LOOK V. LOOK. This was a petition by Jane Lock for dissolution of her marriage with Thomas Lock on the ground of adultry. Mr Weston appeared for the petitioner, Jane Lock, who s'at d she was married to respondent on 20th May, 1885, at the Registry Office, New Plymouth. They had since lived together in New Plymouth, and there was on<s child issue of marriage. There was also an adopted child, a daughter of petitioner's sister. About four years ago respondent purchased a merry-go-round, and during part of each year he wag away touring the colony. They last lived together in the winter of 1900, and defendant left witness at the end of September of that year. When respondent came back again in 1901, witness taxed him with infidelity, and lett tbe house to Jive elsewhere, Respondent denied the charges at first, but aft?rwards admitted them, About May, 1900, witness went to Whangarei, and found respondent living with a woman named Oelia Margaret Emensan as man and wife, but witness forgave that occurrence. Respondent, on his return in August last, admitted that he had a jain been living with Emensen, hence these proceedings. To his Honor: Petitioner and her husband had lived on good terms, and parted good friends a year ago. Respondent had never made any complaint agiinst witness. He admitted that Emensen travelled about with him, fl. W Govett, policitor, gave evidence of witnessing respondent's signature to a document, in which he admitted having co-babited with Emensin. N. K. MacDiarmid, manager of the Bank of New South Wales, New Plymouth, deposed that he had known tbe parties for about eight years. As far as he knew the petitioner had been an exemplary wife, being hard-working and careful of her husband's business during his absence, On occasions when witness met the parties they appeared to bo on the be<it of terras. This was the case for the petitioner. His Honor granted a decree nisi, to i be made absolute after three mqntbs, petitioner to have the ouatody of the children. No cos's were a9ked for, re- ! spondont having made over some pro- ( porfcy in s<-ttleme<-t of the costs. ; This concluded tht> circuit business, jj ' A WILL CASE. ] Mich v - Fookes. - This was a case brought un ' er the Testators Family Mainten ance ofc > 1900 - T - s - | Weston who appeared for the plaintiff, ] applied f or Bn or der of the Court to ' make adeq Uft t e allowance for the widow ' of one Alexander Micheli, late of J Stra'ford, out of his estate M'cheli , died on 24th October, }9OO, in the < Tyrol district. Austria, leaving pro- 1 perty valued at about Under his will he left .£SOO to his widow, t ! Annie Margaret Micheli, of Stratford; t two legacies of <£2oo to John Taufera'x

and Joseph Guelf, both of South Tyrol, Austria, or to their heir?, " as a token of many pleasant hours spent with them in the summers of 1878 and 1879 and the residue to his brother, Dominicua Micheli, who, when last heard of, resided at Boyen, South Tyrol, or to his next of kin. Mr Weston appeared for the plaintiff, Mr H. R. Richmond for the beneficiaries under the will, and Mr T. O.! Fookes on his own behalf as trustee j 1 and executor of the will, ] After hearing counsel, his Honor j held that under t.he Act he had the power to remodel the will and do what was just, He ordered that the bequest to Mrs Micheli be increased to j£looo, to be paid to the Public Trustee, the mother to have a life interest in the income, and on her death the capital sum to go to her daughter on reaching the'age of 21 years; and in the case of the daughter pre-deceasing the mother, the latter to have power to appoint an heir. His Honor also ordered that the legacies to Taufera and Guelf be roduced to £IOO each, and the residue handed to the brother Dominicus Mr. Fookes stated that the estate was estimated to produce about £IBSO nett. Costs of all parties were ordered to be paid out of the estate. Mr Weston pointed out that the case was an interesting one, being the second brought under the Act of last year, and the points at issue in this case were dis-similar to those in the previous one.

The Court adjourned till 10 o'clock this morning, when banco business will be taken.