Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SUPREME COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

(Before His Honor, Sir Robert Stout, C.J.)

UNDEFENDED DIVORCE CASES

At the Supreme Com-i this morning, before His Honor, the Chief Justice, Violet Rose Braggins petitioned for a divorcafrcm James Arthur Braggins on the ground of adultery. The case was undefended, and Mr A. R. Bunny appeared for the petitioner. . After hearing the evidence, His Honor granted a decree nisi, with costs according; to scale.

In the case in which George Edward Chapman sued for a divorce from Mary Chapman, His Honor granted a decree nisi. Costs against the co-respondent were not asked for. The case was undefended, and Mr A. R. Bunny rppeared for the petitioner, who deposed that he was employed as a working tailor in...Mastertoiiw, He stated that he. had only been a,resident of Masterton for about three years past. His? wife left him tb come to Masterton from Blenheim eight or nine.years ago. '" *.. APPEAL CASES. Mr,C. A, Pownall appealed under the Justices of .lithe Peace Act against the decision of Mr L. 0. Reid, S.M., in the case in which one Biickeridge was fined under the Dairy Industry Act,. 1908, for having supplied the Parkval.e Dairy Co. with adulterated milk. Mr C. A. Pownall appeared for appellant, anil Mr P. li. Hollings for respondent. Mr Pownall. 'argued that the judgment of the ]kagistrate was wrong on-the' ground 'that there was jm agency be-' ,tweeri : defendant, and the supplier, and that the analysis provided Statute; had not been made; After hearing argument the appeals was dismissed, witli £4 4s costs'to be' paid to the re-; sporident. ..";- ;'/v<V ;■'•' ~;. s '7.,'.':v : 'A''

An appeal was heard in the case of Henderson v.Wallis; Mr Pbwiiall appeared for appellant; and Mr T. E. Maunsell; for respondent; The. facts were that Henderson asked Wallis for an estiniate for certain repairs ~ ,to• f& building at Carterton.; When:this was" supplied the' former telegraphed to - him to proceed at once. ; Wallis replied" that he coukl riot commence until!.the end' of the ; month.; No further eom-; municatiori was received ifroin dersori,: arid "Wallis, Believing that his tender was accepted, was about io icommence. workiat'theerid' of; /tfie) month, when Be received a telegrapi' from Henderson telling him not to go ! 'on. The contention of the appellant, was that' there was no building con> tract, as Wallis did not commence the work ; at, pnoe, as requested. His Honor dismissed the appeal with obsts ivd ;sSiin Wallis':-favour. '■;[', ■■■■''■' } -'; ; ■■'■ :■■'■'■.'%■:. An .appeal was heard from the Judgment of Mr Reid, S.M.. for the; plaintiff in the case Rathbone ; T; •Harris.':.:-;: '■''•• ■'".'■'' ';■';.} Mr Pownall appeared for the appelr lanti r-;ari(3 Mr Hollings for the respondent. ;.',;.;■!..:',,■'"'■.. : : Mr Pownall argued that the •acceptance of a p.ri. from the debtor (Whitehead) ,; discharged the defendant (Ha rris),. who had guaranteed plaint liaff's 'account; for whom.'the Magistrate had given judgment, k: -?:-Mr.; Hollings, ror ?:cqnV• tended that the ; Magistrate's merit arttee^cpnteriiplatedlgiving" eredit;?ansl : ; ;theifirsfc";p.n, t^akerf;wasljf ; ,tri^;j^npd'.;;'a'tt# \ing:f6uhdvas a ;fifstvp.n..iwas taken wr&KOTt:tho*sure- ! ' ,ty?s,' all along 'a consenting ■time, arid had expressly v urged ..„tne. plaintiff to give tiriie, and had,iri-fact, paid £lO on account since the matiirity;of the p\n„ and: that ; the trate's/firidings- ?on those facts 'were; 'H After Mr Pownall had replied,iHis; Honor reserveU-^u^gnt^^ be: deliver!ed; ; Mis * : .'. )£"■: 'H }':■'■ :[ : }-^ ,: r.An application by Mr T. Jordanfort a charigebf venue irithe.appearcaseof Lee.,and.york was;;, hj OHis; ;Honor, yesterday mbrairig. / The appeal is against the decision of Mr; C. ife , S.M,j bn;the;grourial thatirV" , ,\vasragairist;the 7 weight;' of£:evidence " 'aiid/jvilhbe heard in after: pEa^ier'n'James tbe&f. iri' will <be ■ feiriem- . bered sited Thomas-Flint York for £75 , damage? for alleged -breach of cbn--tract^n'regard'; to; the; of ?. SfjmeMieep, arid the ; went ; ' : aigainst.hirii;'■v,:^■;'^, , .;' :'::'';;;■''■■".;:';"7-''" : . ■..''.■:■

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WAG19110331.2.5

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10201, 31 March 1911, Page 3

Word count
Tapeke kupu
596

SUPREME COURT. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10201, 31 March 1911, Page 3

SUPREME COURT. Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10201, 31 March 1911, Page 3

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert