THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 14119, 23 July 1909, Page 5

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICK COURT. (Before J. R. Bartholomew, S.M.) Prohibition Orders.—Orders were granted against two men.—-John Brulon, fortyseven years of age, appeared, his son making application for a prohibition order against him. Mr Hawkins appeared for complainant, and Mr £>eurr defended.— .Mr Hawkins said that defendant was prohibited before, but the order ran out fifteen months ago. lie kept steady for three months, but during the last twelve months had been drinking heavily.—John Urn ton, defendant's eldest son, said that his father drank very heavily at times. When he got drunk he became very violent. He was a mail whom drink demoralised. When under the influence of iiquor hi? always wanied to tight. He drank with people with whom he would not like to be seen when he was sober. He was I always drunk on .Saturday, and sometimes through the week. -He did not live at | home, but stayed at the barracks. He was an artilleryman. To Mr Scurr : He would swear that he did not leave home because of trouble with his mother. His father was a very respectable man but for the drink.—Lilian Hamilton Bruton said that her husband had been drinking far the past fifteen months, since the last order ran out. He was drunk fully five times a week, and on Saturdays he" came home an-.r going to the foythall, fought, til! he g-t more money to go out, and again came home about < 'even and slept it off on Sunday.— Lilv Bruton (the daughter) said that a fm might ago defendant, tried to hit her. but her mother took him by the arms, and witness picked up the poker and "gave him two on the head."— Allan Bruton son) said his father was under the influence about three nights a week and Saturdays, and was then very abusive and foul-tongued. causing trouble H the house.—Mr Scurr said that defendant bad been employed at Shacklock's for sixteen years. .Mr Shacklock had given him a reference stating that he never had lost one day through" drink. Defendant would say that he gave his wife all his wages, and received what little money lie wanted from her. and that sura wis not enough for him to drink as complainant said he did.—Defendant said that he had not been abusive. His family had assaulted him before. He had been struck with a dumb-bell, and had taken out on order against himself to prevent himself from being knocked about. His wife tried to get an order against him. but it was refused. That night he was " brutalised " into taking it out himself. A policeman came in the window while he was having supper, and his own son struck him on the head with the dumb-bell. He complained at the station, but no action was brought. To Mr Hawkins : He did not threaten to shoot his wife, or catch her by the throat. He did not know of any meeting of the Garrison Band having been held for the purpose of putting him out of it. His wire would give him none of the information he had the right to have of his family business. He got only incivility, and his wife had told him that if he gave he-- v pound a week she would be glad to get rid of him.— ;-omplainant (recalled) gave evidence of the occasion upon which defendant said he was 'rit with a dumb-beil. She said that when ihe order was refused he was very jubilant. He said he was to keep all ris money after that. He "had threatened to shoot them, and thev had hidden a gun. He carr.e home that "night, and after lmi&hirig a bottle of beer, banned on the tabk, and called to her to come out of her loom. He then banged on the janels to smash it in. Then witness aot a policeaum. «ho went to help. When he came oack defendant had got through witness's window, and turned them all out into the street in their nightelothes. He caught her by the throat, and her son Allan, coming to hex assistance, struck him on the head with a dumb-bell.—The order was granted. Disobedience of Order.—Adam Scott Johnstone T.as charged with disobeying an order to pay for his father's maintenance The arrears were £7 lCs.—Defendant was fined 10s.

Maintenm=e.—David John M'Auley pleaded not .guilty to failing to provide his wife and child with adequate means of maintenance.— Mr Irwin, who appeared for defendant, said that he admitted money had not been paid, but the defence was that a home ha*3 been offered.—Mr Hawkins said that there had been no offer of a home since January last, and no monev had been rent to her.—Complainant. Jose"phine M'Auley, cave lengthy evidence, and told of the harsh treatment .she hnd received at 'he rands of defendants people, and cruel treatment at his own hand- He had forbidden her to ~o out durin - the afternoons, r.nd had bought clothing for neither her nor her babv. He wiehed her to go *rt v orking. Defendant's mother tamed her out in January last, and she To Mr Irwin : Defendant, when he came to town, had raid that he would not work for her or ner baby. She could get work —-Mr Irwra said that, as a matter of fact, defendant had tried to get his wife awav from her pother to come to Middleman*", but he conld not c et her to come.—Defendant, said that while wife had staved with bs toother the latter had received board from him al! the time. When he 0 t°. *•* h ! s ~ ife - her mother would abuse him and practically refused %j£l J!" £ r ,' his ife )-Cross-ex-IwT kV? Hawkins, defendant said that he had bought clothing f or hi* wife He had not ill-treated his wife. He had taken a drink or two at tin**, but had not gone home orunk and struck his wife. He would deny ever havins left her in a bruiaed condition. He had a home for her at thapresent time Mr Hawkins pressed the question, and defendant admitted that tie home he Teferred to was at his mothers place.—An orcier was made for the maintenance of the wife, 10s per week, and 5s for the child ; £1 l fc C cets an owed each information. Wolf Balkend for failms to provide for hM unborn illegitimate child was remanded to Wednesday. PORT CHALMERS~COURT. (Before H. Y. Widdowson, Esq., S.M.) By Watson v. W F Hansen.—Claim, £4 17s, for goods supplied Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs (ss). Cool Storage Charges Disputed.—The 7& g ° n ck Trost sued John "aUon for £SI 2s 2d, owing for the cool storage of rabbits during the season 1908 at plaintiffs' freezing works at Port Chalmers. Mr Wife appeared for the Trust, and Mr \ S Adams for defendant.—Mr Wise, in statement of the case, said chat in 1908 Mr Watson made an offer for a special rate, which the Trust declined to accept as he would not guarantee hve thousand cases of rabbits. Meanwhile, defendant continued to put rabbits into the freezing works The Trust therefore charged a previou&ly-deoded-on tanif of a farthing per ca<e per week after the rabbits hud been a month in the works.—F. Kettle, secretary to the Dock Trust, deposed that defendant delivered rabbits at the freezings, and as he had no special arrangement in respect to charges he was therefore charged the consolidated rate in operation the previous year. Ihe disputed rate of one farthing per week included all charges exclusive ( ° the freezing of the rabbits. Crossexamined, witness said that ui i'ar a i • knew cool storage was not chargad for "prior to his entering the service of the Trust three years ago.—Duncan Fletcher, engineer of freezing works, said that when rabbits were being frozen the machinery was. kept running without stopping, while the machinery only ran for twelve hours per day for storage purposes.—Robert S. Black had had thirteen years experience in the export rabbit trade. When no special terms were charged for, a cool-storage rate was charged, 'the Dock Trust's rate of a farthing per week after the expiry of a month was the lowest rate in New Zealand ; it wed to be a halfpenny rate. To the Bench; Every rabbit exporter expected to pay for cool storage.—Mr aAdanus: In Port Chalmers?—Witness: Everywhere.— Mr Adams said defendant had been freezing rabbits at the Trust's works for the past ten years, and last season was the first in which any charge had been made lor

cool storage.—The defence was that during all those years tha defendant had never been asked to pay storage, even up to the present lime. The defendant stated his reasons for believing that he was not to be charged for storage.—His Worship said that, on the evidence before him he could not find for plaintiffs, who were accordingly nonsuited. Defendant was allowed £2 4s costs.