MAGISTERIAL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVII, Issue 2496, 8 May 1909, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

FRIDAY MAY 7. (Before Mr.. W. A. Barton, S.M.) PROCURING LIQUOR. § ■ ~ Francis Edward Wilson was charged with drunkenness 'and with piocuiing liquor during the currency of a prohibition order issued against him. lhe accused pleaded guilty, and admitted a previous conviction in November last. His Worship inflicted a. fine oi| £1 with costs 2s on the charge of drunkenness and a fine of £lO with costs -s m default two months’ imprisonment m the Napier Gaol on the second charge.

ASSAULTING A WIFE. The defendant Wilson also pleaded guilty to a charge of having assaulted Helena Wilson, defendant’s wife, Raid that her husband was drunk nearly .all day on Thursday and after tea c lie was going to bed when defendant accused her of being frequently drunk and out at night. Her husband then struck her and marked her face, bhe sent for the police -and defendant was arrested. He usually assaulted her when he had drink. There was no truth in her husband’s statement that she took drink. .. , . ... , The defendant said his wile was always nagging <vb kim and-lic lost Ins Worship: Men cannot bo allowed to knock their wives about in this way. You are a cowardly brute to have done it. You would not try to do it with a man You are convicted and fined £o with costs, in default 14- days’ imprisonment, with hard labor. The sentences to bo cunnvative. DRUNKENNESS.

Two fivst offenders who pleaded guilty to charges of drunkenness were fined 5s each with costs in default 24 hours’ imprisonment, JUDGMENT—SINCLAIR V. ILES. His Worship also delivered tlie following judgment in the case of Wallace Sinclair, of Oan\aru (Mr G. Stock) v. William Frank lies and another (Mr L. T. Buruard): —“Plaintiff claims to recover from the defendants certain articles, including three gold rings and a bracelet, which he says he left in the care of Mrs lies for safe keeping in the year 1903, on the death of his wife, who was a sister of Mrs lies. Defendants admit the receipt of all tlie articles. and, with the exception of all but the rings and bracelet, that they were given in payment for moneys owing by plaintiff* to defendants. In reference to the three rings and bracelet, Mrs lies says that she was with her sister during her illness, on the Saturday before her death, and that the deceased said to her, ‘lf anything happens to me, take possession of my. rings and bangle.’ She further says that her sister died on the'Tollowing Monday, she being present, and that immediately after* death, plaintiff took the rings off her sister’s fingers and gave them to her, saying that she had the best right to them. I am of opinion upon the evidence and surrounding circumstances that all the articles ivith the exception of the rings were given to the defendant, Mrs lies, in payment for moneys owing by plaintiff to defendants, and I believe the evidence of Mrs lies in relation to the rings and bangle, and, that being so, plaintiff cannot in my opinion recover them in the present action. I am further of opinion that, considering the relations of the parties and all surrounding circumstances, this action should not have been brought. Judgment will bo entered for defendants, with costs £2 12s. “In reference to the counter-claim for money lent, etc., plaintiffs frankly admit that they did not intend and wou’d never have made this claim upon defendant but for their own protection against the defendant’s action. It is evident that they considered the articles given them by the defendant as reasonable compensation for any claim which they mav have had against him, and, that'being so, I shall enter judgment for' the defendant in respect or tlie counterclaim, without costs.”