Supreme Court.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 March 1904, Page 3

Supreme Court.

-NKtt' IMAWltii Til, L'K! I)A V, MAKI'JI 1. lkloiv I!is Honor Justice iu'dh. J* itivtjuci-:. \". 1 lew. —ijl! s! >ai:d's on tlii- "rounds 01' (i. s- rii(n). .Mr Sa.'iiiu-I iij!jm•;i!'<ml lot- Ui«- pel i (io'i<'i\ ami talrd thai a! last of I laSiiiavnif Coari a <i< was -raui.-l. on I.ln. 1 |m-i i i jun. c;; a|tj-liral ion, lor I ii'.' l 1 , a 1 ] ';; |j i .s. I his derive had ij.-cji ;r\ed o?. ihe ri sponde'i t, bat ;,!)(• jv |'i 1 ]o ohi-v iIK provisions. slated ihat no pled-:.' or proaa-.- on \he -juri of In r husband would alter iter deci iiiid stca<ifast J> refused io rd-ini lo him or lo approach hi in in ai;\ v. ay. She was informed Iha 1 on her le'nsa.t her husband world probably appiy lor a disso'in ion \>i the marriage, and she replied thai it uas the Isi. tiling to he done, and Dial she had been expecting il.

l''onnal e\ idence was I>anks, of the Surcvjnu Court, and Air J{oy, .solicitoi- ;'or liie respondent.

The petitioner was put iniu the box. and .staled he !iad revived no cominmiicaiion I'rom his wile sbre the former decree was hsued. A decree nisi whs rrauied. to l>e made absabite in three luonlh.s. roLICU Y. NU(i.

in Ihe njaitei' (;)' an apjuai hy i leore'e \\ i llia.ii) I h.iu; ihe decision .\lr Stanford, S.AJ., in a sireet-i-el ii case, Air i 'll/herl erl (instructed hy Mr Uili'ord, of Wei--11nj;11:11) appeared for tiiv appel! ,m, and .Mr .K"rr for i j:i i• . ;•-*m.■ iil.

Air kt rr raised a piviln:ii;a,r\ <hjection thai the Court had iio jurisdiction in tills ie' i 1.11 i'. 'J'la- aopee.l had l:eeii in the : : .up:vnii! Coui l. and the law on the oshi.rt provided I hat. in a Cistric !. (V.-.n district il shouid lav.e iiis,', hc>n iij'i»iil;h 1 into Ihe liislricl l'o;;rt. ;,iul iheii, il d'. sired, reino\ed h\ I'eiiioj-;-i i itilo I lie hieher ecu: I, lie ijtioleil section sai;-.-1 >i ions 1 and 'J, ol tiie Justices of the I'eare Act. ISN2.

Air Filzh'-rherl sul-nii' I'd lha t I tie r.(\i;islal ure never intended thai iilii;nnts should he coiiipelh-d lo take litis round-iil.out iretlied bi in;;in;; a ca.se into the Supreme ('o'l ii, i hus incurring consideral ■le e.s : >"•] m\ lie ijiioted certain si el ions of Ihe Act. and said that (he s; c I ions quo I - c.l hy Me Kerr were permissive, not compuk-.ory.

J lis I lonor s.iid 1m- «iui i e ugre M v. i I ii Mi' kerr's iet iT|<m 1 a', ion e; ihe stalub-. whirl) \uts (-lain thai where a. I'ist rid ('ourl e\isi -d appeals ft oia magislerial deciiions must he iotha-d in t I.e. ( court. e.\c.'pl (lai [ a I)r I r.ci t.'ourl jiide.e ii:ih! not hear an aj«peal friua a decision e'ixen i.y h:"i whin siltit:;; in the capacity of ia»>gis! rale. ,\s in ihis cas l ' uotiee to aj'peal had !• • i •»i j.i \. 11 in I lie wrong court. he hud no jurisdiet ion. Ile ir.foi'iued conn:«'l foe the appellant that whereas llieje w;'.s now no appeal on ouesl ions of lad . he miv.nl appeal to i lie Appi ~l t'ourt aa i: is t tile th ci: ion .in: I ai \ >-\\. id r i'il/hei l;i n i Jh-h- I:! :ia! i' ciy that thai cou i se, \ v on h I I e adoj il < rI. ('(»:. Is C'J lis w ere aibeA-M. 'ihe Court adjourned until Tuesday mornin.c,