Supreme Court.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume XLVII, Issue 7938, 29 September 1905, Page 2

Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court sittings were continued on Thursday. Wis Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) look tho Bench at 9.45 a.m. DIVORCE. Mr Samuel called additional cvidonco in reference to the 'divorce suit brought by Agnes liogers against her [ husband, Ambrosu liogers (Grey- ' mouth.) The evidence of the pelition--1 regarding desertion for many years ; was corroborated. Mr Quilliam appeared with Mr 1 Samuel for 'the petitioner. I His Honour granted a decree nisi, l to 1)C •ma'de absolute in three months, s Costs on the lower scale were allowed tho pctiticnor.

J HOHOtUH LICENSING I'OWEIiS. IJis Honour delivered his reserved s judgment in the appeal of the New s Plymouth llorough Council against 8 the decision of the 3.M. with respect " to the liability of 11. White, pro. I- prietor of'the Opurmke coach, to pay '» vehicular license fees to the liorou^h. e Mr Samuel, with Mr Quilliam, apc peared for the appellant Council, and ie Mr Roy for the respondent. I- The .question, .vaid his Honour, I- turned upon the validity of by-law I- Xo. 100 of tho New Plymouth ltord cugh, which set out "Xo carriage or vehicle shall be kept or used to ply for hire for the carriage of passengers or goods either by contract or j otherwise, either wholly within the ; Jiorough, or between any place with- ?, in and any place without the Itor- , ougli, unless the same shall have ' hieen 'duly licensed as hereinafter menlioned." The Magistrate had found ls that tho 'by-law was invalid in so far 18 as it purported to require a license for a carriage or vehicle plying fot 1' hire within the Borough between any rc. placo within and any place without ts tho Boroug'h. The Borough has powa or under the Statute to define, license, le and regulato tile conduct of carriers ie of persons and goods for hire, and i- by section <lO6 a vehicle license takie en out under a by-law in the Borough tc within which the vehicle mostly 3b plied would suffice within five miles lie therefrom. The sola 'question, said s, his Honour, "was whether under the [y general authority given to_license lie vehiefcs, tH.n'ci isjpowla er to require that a vehicle" which t c takes passengers for hire from with-

ill a borough to !>e carried through tire borough anil' beyond it must, 'be licensed. Th« Magistrate's argument was first that the Borough could not insist upon a license for Vehicles outside the Borough. This was clear , the vehiclo must ply for hire ivithin the Borough before the Borough had any control over it. Nor in'lvis Honour's opinion, could the license issued by the Borough authorise a vehicle to ply for hire ■beyond the Borough boundaries unless in the case mentioned in subsection 2, .of section 406. Hut so long 'as a vehicle plies for hire within the Borough, though the passengers 'are to 'be carried for hire beyond the Borough, in his opinion t'here is authority for the Borough to 1 Kvnsi' such vehicle. No doubt, he said, .when the vehicle enters within a county the county maj demand a license for that vehicle, and this has 'been .so deckled by Air Justice Edwards in she case Waitemata County Council v. Challenger. No doubt, the Magistrate was right In saying that the license of l!orough cannot, operate outside its boundary, but, his Honour pointed out. this was not sufficient., it must appear clearly that there is no power a by-law for the licensing of vehicles plying within the borough though thy passengers are to be carried 'beyond t'he borough, before 'by-law 100 could be held to be ultra vires. The appeal was therefore allowed, with ZTt ."is costs, and the licensing prosecution remitted back to the S.M'.WAITARA TRESPASS CASK. Judgment; was delivered In the case Mere Hikatu and others v. J. (!. Itussell and (i. l'ott, a claim for JL'SO damages for trespass. Mr \V. L. T'itzherbert appeared for the plaintiffs, Ms Ifutchen fi:r the defendant Itussell, and Mr Qutlliam for tiro defendant Vott. His Honour said this was an action by live natives, who claimed that they were,■t'he proprietors 0f,78 acres 22 perclves oil land. The defence to the claim of trespass was a denial that the plaintiffs were the registered proprietors of the vntirety of tile land, 'but an admission that they were registervxl proprietors oi undivided shares in it. The defendants also denied the trespass, and .said that the alleged trespass was an entry by leave and license. Treating with the grant, liis Honour said he thoug-ht it iwas clear from the document that, the plaintiffs were tenants in common, though of interest. The contention of the defendants that all 'the successors should have been joined, and tlutt this not being dono, the plaintiffs could not recover, was in his Honour's opinion invalid. Not having proceeded by summons under the rules, the defeiv dnnts could not raise the question at the hearing. In his opinion the evidence showed 'that a dam was constructed on a creek that ran 'between the plaintiffs' ami defendants' land ; that soil was dug from the plaintiffs' land to make this dam, ami tHat, the result of the dam was to cause the plaintiffs' land to be flooded and to injure it. The defendant Russell pleaded that he. was only a trustee of the land;, ami'thai though he was registered proprietor tiro beneficial owner was the other defendant. His Honour was of.;opinion. however, that. Hit* 'defendant coul.l not iget rid of his responsibil ity. Pealing with the area, it appeared that thij Waitara llarboui Board granted a lease to.some persons named Murgatroyd, ami included in the lease about 1 aero awl 30 perches of land 'that was not vested in the Waitara Harbour Board, but was previously granted lo the plain-' tiffs and to Hemi Pataka, deceased. This lease was transferred to the defendant Russell. The defendant de. sired apparently that some -arrangeIment should bt; made -between (he Harbour Board and tile natives, but none was made. The defendant ,I'ott

silt tip permission' by the agent of Iho phiin-tilTs to erect this second The emus of proving 'this restell with -tire defendant, hut the agent denied the granting of such permission, 'and the letters written 'by Russell negatived -Hie -existence of such a permission. 'Pile other correspondenco also showed that the defendants dill not. rely upon a license from the plaintiffs or their agent -to civet the dam. .Judgment was given for £2O, with costs on the lowest scale. In giving ordinary Supreme Court costs his Honour said he tlid so as the case involving a .question .of title, could ■not have been 'determined in the Magistrate's Court. THE TE KOTI CASK. r l'he new trial -in the charge preferred against Reuben White, mi. elderly mail, of having had carnal relations with a girl ogort 15, at 'IV Rotl, near Kit-ham, on July 20, was commenced. The following jury was sworn in : W. L. Newman (foreman), K. M. Corney, It. Heard, T. J. Shaw, Jas. Salt, A. How, F.l'utt, ]). 11. Bish»p. J. llailey, W. Foxeroft, \V. Staite, aivd H. Ilonnor. Mr W. Kerr conducted the prosecution for the Crown, 'ami Mr Samuel, with Mr ]{. 11. Welsh (llawera), appeared tor the -defence. The morning was occupied in -hearing tlio evidence of the girl and her mother, both witnesses being subjected -to searching cross-examination by Mr Samuel. The evidence for the defence was taken ill -the afternoon. After the adjournment Mr Samuel made a powerful address to the jury in -a speech extending ovor two -hour.i. After Mr Kerr'* reply, and -his Honour's summing up, the jury retiivd at M.IIO, ami returned in 25-minutes with a verdict of "-Not guilty." The accused was then discharged. It is now stated that tha world v ' ! be over-peopled at the end of 170 >ears. This brings us to the year I 2081, when tho population at thfe resent rate c>f increase, will be 15994 million people 1