SUPREME COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 250, 12 March 1913, Page 7

SUPREME COURT.

YEST EISDAY'S ,SITTINGS. The Xew Plymouth sessions of the Supreme Court wens continued yesterday before .Mr. Justice Deuiiiston. IX DIVORCE. Mary Ann Loftus petitioned for a dissolution' of her marriage with Thomas Loftus, on the grounds of desertion. Mr. J. H. Quilliam appeared for the petitioner, and there was no appearance of the respondent. The petitioner stated in evidence that ' she was married to the respondent 011 March 17. l'.lOfi. At the time she, was married she was a widow with live children. There, were no children of the second marriage. After her marriage she lived at Xew Plymouth with respondent for about a year and a-lialf. She discovered that he was addicted to drink, and owing to his conduct when drunk she had had to pet police protection. Early in July, 1 !);IV. her husband left Xew Plymouth, stating that lie was going to Auckland to got work. They parted on good terms. She wrote to him at Auckland anil received an answer (produced). Six weeks later she received another letter from him from Gisborne. She wrote to the address he indicated, hut the loiter was returned through the Dead Letter Oflice. She had made enquiries from the police and had advertised for his whereabouts, but had heard nothing of him. lie had contributed nothing towards her maintenance during liis absence. •lohn Johnson, brewer, residing at. Xew Plymouth, said he was a trustee of the estate of the 1a to Mr. Lovell. the former husband of petitioner. Loftus had left Xew Plymouth in Julv, 1907, since when he had never heard of him. His Honor granted a decree nisi. DISTURBED POSSESSIOX. Tn the case of William Snell, of Dannevirke. against Patrick Raill, farmer,, of Koru. the plaintiff claimed possession 1 of a property at Koru and demense pro- | fits. The defendant counterclaimed for specific performance of an agreement for the sale and purchase of the section. j The case did not occupy much time, j The facts alleged by the plaintiff were 1 admitted, viz., that he v.as entitled to ' possession as the mortgagee. The defendant claimed, however, under an agreement alleged to have been entered into between the plaintiff bv an agent, in the person of Mr. Bamford. Both Snell and Bamford denied this 5 agency. Snell swore that he had never j even seen the agreement before its pro- j duction in Court, while Bamford deposed that his correspondence with the defend- { ant's solicitors, relative to the alleged j agreement, was conducted entirely 011 J behalf of Mrs. Patterson, the owner of 1 the property, and not for the plaintiff. 1 The defendant, being nuabie to.estab-. I lish the agency, elected to take a ]ion-,| suit on tlie counter-claims. I Judgment was given for the plaintiff on tite claim for possession, and £lO allowed as mesne profits. Mr. A. R. Standish appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. H. Johnstone for the defendant. j AX ECHO OF A WILL. An originating summons was brought j 011 under the Family Provision Act, j 100 S. 011 behalf of Emma Jane Scheibler, j for an order that contribution be made for her out of the estate of her late 1 husband, Randolph Scheibler. Scheibler, j. who was a fanner at Huirangi. was accidentally killed 011 December !) last year, through falling out of a milk cart. Testator, by his will-, left his whole estate to such of his nephews and nieces as 111 iglit be found within three years I of the date of bis death, and failing that it was. he decreed, to go to the Taranaki Hospital and Charitable Board. Mr. F. Wilson appeared for the plaintiff. : Mr. J. C. Xicholson for Richard Price I (executor under the will), and Mr. C. J W. Govett for the Board. 1 His Honor made an order for the payment of £1 per week to Mrs. Scheibler. leave being reserved to the beneficiaries to apply to vnrv the order. Costs were allowed out of the estate, which was sworn in at £4OO. A (OXSTRCI TIVE BAXKRUPTCY. Mr. R. Kpcnce applied for the annulment of the bankruptcy of Arthur Ernest U. Collins, of Xew Plymouth. Counsel put in a statement bv the Official Assignee to "the effect that Collins, who had paid his creditors in full, had had a surpl us of over £IOO returned to him. 11l annulling the order, His Honor remarked that i ( was onlv a constructive bankruptcy. lie would be pleased to grant such orders every day in the week.

FATHER AfiALVST SOX. CASE AMICABLY SETTLED. A civil claim involving a farming dispute was preferred against Albert Edward Hay ward Ivy his father, .lames Hayward. Both parties are farmers residing at Xormanby. and the claim was for €4:!!) !ls 7d. Mr. B. Spence. instructed by Messrs. Welsh. Coplen and McArthy, appealed for the plaintiff, and Mr. H. H. Johnstone, and with him Mr. Sellar, for the, defence.

The plaintiff alleged in his statement of claim thiil hi' hail locked with dairy cows. fenced am! put ti)> buildings. upon a farm belonging to the defendant, and tliat all monies expended by him were to lie charged in an account against the defendant: that the cows were to he j owned in half shares, and that the defendant was to owe the plaintilV the cost of half of the cows; that all milking was to lie done liy the defendant, who was to receive two-liftln of the profits and the plaintilV and he were to divide the remaining tlircc-fiflhs between them: that this agreement lasted for something like three years, and that the balance owing to the plaintiff by the defendant on the account between them for this period was ,C2.'UO. The plantill' further ■ alleged that at the end of this period the defendant took 44 of the ..8 cows then on (he farm, and converted the same to his own use. leaving to the defendant only "24 cows. The statement of the defence was n general denial of the plaintiffs allegations. The defendant admitted the agrei incut for working on shares, but said that the accounts had been settled' between himself and the plaintilV. and that there was only a. small balance of .010 liis .»1 due bv him to the phiiu(tilV. The action was a claim for the alleged balance of the account. C2IS4 and 1314. for the defendant, taking and converting the cows and the of milk, totalling in all .U4.S!) !).- 7d. When Mr. Spence was proceeding to open his c-'se. His Honor remarked that lie had read the pleadings, and he would like the defendant, counsel to satisfy liiin how be could possibly justify the aliened taking of the number of cows claimed. Mr. Johnstone said there had bee» an agreement' between the parties, giving the defendant the right to the number of cows lie had taken. His Honor pointed out (let, the defendant could not do this. Each party had equal rights. There were (IS cow*, and the defendant look 44. leaving the plaintilV only 2(. The defendant could not do this—as it at present appeared to His Honor—unless there was a complete agreement and a division of specific cows, consummated by both parties present, at the division. Mr. Spence pointed out to His Honor

that the defendant had paid half the purchase money (if the whole herd of 'tows, and it was clear that the parties had equal rights and were entitled to an equal number of cows. llis Honor saiil that Mas exactly what he had gathered from the pleadings. It was clear to him, from the defendant's own statement of defence, (hat he (the defendant) had eommitteil a tortious act. So far as the first cause of aetion was concerned, that was purely a (pies? tion of accounts, and he would probably refer that part of the claim to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and an accountant. After further discussion. "His Honor like to consider his position, and he therefore adjourned the ease until later in the day. in order to allow the parties to confer. On resuming, counsel announced that a satisfactory settlement had been come to and that a judgment by consent would be duly tiled. The Court then adjourned till 10.,1(1 o'clock this morning.