RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Manawatu Times, Volume V, Issue 154, 20 August 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

THtrasDAT, Jdi.t 18th, 1881. Before R. Ward Esq., B.M. ' CIVTt. CASES. • . J. Nathan and Co. y. Wi Weahhu — Claim 14a. Settled QUt of Court, Same v. Pate te Awi Avri. — Claim 7t 6d. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v. W. Moore.— -Claim 19g. Judgment by dtfault with costs. King Bros; V; Johu-:Mould#n.— Claim £8 10. Defendant admitted the debt, but stated he was finable to pay more tban 10s per month. Judgment for amount and costs. Richter, Nonnested and Co., v. CtiUfiker and Martin.— Claim- £>3 17s 6d. amount of a dishonored Promissory Note Judgment for amount and coats 365. 8. Ewing v. G. OliveK— Clai.n £4, balance due on a contract, and £2 travelling excuses. The case, was rdjourned to''-al-low o >uusul fur the defence to produceevidence. .;,•■' David-Hughey y. Hurv te Hiaro. — • Claim £48 15s amount of a dishonored Promissory Note • ' Mr Perkins appeared for the defendant and Mr Hawkins for' the.- *pia ; ntiff. - The defence wert to show that although the pUiutiff had some time since become: a bankrupt, he had subsequently purchased all debts due to his estate, andwaft therefore justified m bringing tbitSßtion to recover. •..■■■-•- - The plaintiff was examined to some length by Mr Perkins, as to his having become indebted ta the defendant some time agryin the sum of £200, which he borrow sd. The plaintiff denied the ? mount, but 'he had 1 had money tram, sac-lions some eight years sgo with defendants - ' ;;; ;;•-.. „.•;:'.-, :>'" It appeared m evidence that the defend dant had at diffcient r times drawn twopromissory notes m favor of plaintiff, the first one. being for £tsO, ; bdd, and the one sued on, which 'appeared to have beea drat*.i subsequently; was only £48, 15s, whilst neither of the Bills had been paid or cancUled. And. ,on theae grounds His Worship held, >» tn Mr Parkins, that if he gave a jSidwment m this case, plaintiff might at -a future time bring an action lor the first Bill, notwithstandingtli3 t\ro amounts were included- m the sum of £80 ortd\ The plaintiff was n©n-snited with costs H. M'Neil v. T. and A. Dorean.— Claim £6 10s. Ju^ment confessed. S. Abrahams v. B y Walker.— Claim &7 8s 4d. Judgnojent confessed. _:;. ! STR^T CATTLE. Constable Gillespje vl J. Buick, allows m? cattle to stray upon the road. Defendant pleaded guilty, and was fined Ll and costs. . ABUMyB LANGUAGE. Frank Reeves, was charged, that he did on the 6th of, August, unlawfully use insulting and abusive language ta Mary Ann: Chester, m a public street. Defendant pleaded not guilty. Mary Ann Chester, sworn, said : lam a married woman. I live m Palmerston. I remember the 6th August, I heard mychickens making a noise outside my house, -and.. went to see what was the m;ttter, I saw defendant throwipw afe them. I masked' him.. -to. leave the fowls alone, th«t they belonged to me, and he then made' usft of the language com-. pkin<>d of. When I .'asked him t« leave the fowls alone. He replied "I'll wring all their b- y necks." H R. Nash, heing-.sworp, corroborated the evidence of ib'e last witness. For the defence, George Peck, a boy of 13, was called to prove that the com-i plainant had made use of some rather strong language to defendaat on the day m question, which was the alleged cause of the defendant hating made use of abusive terms. His Worship said, that under any circumstances, it was a most unmanly thing* for a youth to use abusive language to a female, and he would ; to mark his sence of the same, iriftictia' penalty of £2 and costs, and m default of payment, 7 days, imprisonment m the Wanganui gaol. A UNHAPPY COUPLE. Mariin Nelson, w«" brought up m custody, to^show why hehadnot complied with an Onler, for the maintenance of hii wife made by the Court some months siace. Mr. Staite appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Hawkins for the sggrolainant, Mrs.Nflson.^ "^ Mr. Staite aa'-ed for an aTjojipament of 14 days, m order to allow him to produce evidence. He stated that the reason his ■client had not complied with the order of the Court was, inability m the first place, and m the second, he had reason to »usnect i'lfHelity the part of his wife, Tn case ofan adpumm.eittt being granted, ample, and respectable bail would be r orthcom'n{*. His Worship said Mr. Staite had mt shown sufficient cau»e why the payments as ordered by the Cou-tj had not beea made, and therefore the case must be proceeded with. The Clerk of-the Court was sworn, and said; he was aware of the order having been made, one payment of two. pounda has been made, but no more. Payment* ate now due from the ? Boh. of April tOy to the nre3ent date. The order was made payable .it his oflfce. He bad^ therefce, not n?ade any personal application, for* piv.i»en s. The defendant, on being sworn,said he had done aJlia. his pow,er tosjet ois wife to come and live with him. but she refused. He had been unable to keep up, un tbe piiyments, he bad only earnt £\ 153 ; since the last payment was made. He had never "cohabitated with another* womnTi,either befoie, or after.the separation from bis wife. . Other evideuce as to his means of keep-. >ng up the payments was elicited by Mr. Hawkins. But his Worship considered the prosecution had not shown to hist sitisfacii.on that the defendant had htd the means of paying the amounts, and jvontd therefore grant Mr. Staite's api plication -' : fi)i> an adjournment until the 8 b. September, bail being acceptedju\ two. mret\es as ijefo/e^