MAGISTERIAL

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1621, 28 July 1887, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL

ASHBURTON— THURSDAY.

(Before Mr John Olllvier, R.M.) SHEEP ACT. Samuel Mullins was charged on the information of W. A. P. Sntton, Sheep Inapeotor, with being the owner of a number of sheep infected with lice and offered for sale m Ashburton Saleyards. —Fined 20s and costa.— o. T. Dudley was similarly charged and similarly fined. — I Sargent was also fined for a similar offence. — David Thomas waß aIBO fined 20s and cests for having been the owner of sheep infected with Hoe. ALLEGED WIFE DESERTION. Gharleß Physic was charged with having nnlawfnlly deserted his wife, Norah Physio, on March 27, 1887.— Mr Outhbertson appeared for the defendant. — The complainant, Norah Physio, stated tbat tbe had been compelled to leave the defendant m consequence of his violent behaviour towards her. He had often beaten her and made nse of very bad language. — Mr Cuthbertson cross-examined tbe eompl&inant, with a view to showing tbat she had left home without her husband's consent, and that Physio had not illtreated her from a time when she bad complained to the police till she went •way. Sinoe then she said that her husband bad oironlated refleotlonß upon her character, and she had been compelled to bring thli case to dear herself of these ' false charges . Since she had gone away her husband offered her a home, but she would be afraid to go to it, (After some farther questions bad been put, tbe case was adjourned m order to see If a reconciliation oonld not be effeoted, the Magistrate giving the parties some wholesome advice.) A few minutes later MrOuthbertson announced that there was no hope of _ settlement being arrived at. — The wife now asked for a protection order for her earnings. — The defendant, Physic said that his wife had left home against his wish. . be denied having struck her or having used bad language towards her. He had on several occasions tried to pet her to return home bnt she had evaded him. His wife had an extremely bad temper, bnt he was still willing to take her back. — The Magistrate eald that he wonld not grant an order for separate maintenance, but he saw no reason why an order for proteotion of her earnings might not be granted to the wife.— Mr Cuthbertson did not think the information supported suoh an application, — The Magistrate said the information did -set act It forth but it waa what the wife applied for. — At this stage, Mrs Physic brought a witness, Sarah Mulford, who testified that she had seen Physio Illuslng his wife and knocking her about m a brutal manner.— ln cross-examination, the witness admitted having seen Mrs Physic throwing things at her husband's head bnt be bad thrown .plates and dishes at her— she had thrown a pitcher at him and " served him right. "—The Magistrate aaid that he could not help thinking there were faults on both sides. He would grant an order for the proteotion of the wife's earnings but nothing more. He would certainly not make an order to give the custody of the children to tbe wife, it having been shown tbat the husband had provided for them. ALLEGED CRUELTY. The hearing of a charge against John Henry- of having illtreated certain cattle by giving them insufficient food, was adjourned for a week. COW AT LARGE. John Hepburn was fined 5s and costs for having been the owner of a cow found wandering at large. CIVIL CASES. M. Millar v E. J. Jones, claim £3 14s 6d.— Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. M. Millar v T. H. Hudson, claim 18s Id.— Judgment by default for amount claimed and costa. Rangitata Road Board v Clements. — This was a claim for rates. Mr Purnell for plaintiffs — Judgment by default for amount claimed and costs. • Matson, Cox and Co. v Griffen, claim £23 4s 9d, balance alleged to be due to plaintiffs by defendant on a proniissory note. —Mr Wilding for plaintiffs, Mr Purnell for defendant. — This was a case of ft somewhat intricate nature. It appeared from the evidence led for the plaintiff that sometime m 1886, the defendant, Martin Griffen, a farmer, purchased some sheep from Matson, Cox and Co., the arrangement being tbat the sheep were to remain plaintiffs' property till defendant bad paid for them. Some time after this it was agreed among the creditors of Griffen that Mr H. Friedlander should " carry him on," •nd subiequent'y a bill waß given by defendant to Mr M. Friedlander. Mr Thomas, the plaintiffs' manager, and other creditor* then interviewed Mr H . Friedlander and demurred to the arrangement, buChe said it was taken to proteot them. In May last Mr Griffen went to the office of the plaintiffs] and told Mr Makeig, the accountant, that if be took the bill, "some £47, to Friedlander'a it would be tattled. Mr Maielg accordingly went, but it Is alleged was told that the bill for £47 was not worth thirty shillings. On these representations it is alleged that Makeig agreed to accept £25 m settlement, giving a receipt accordingly. Mr Thomas wai ln Melbourne at the time, and on his return, thinking the other creditors were "m tbe same boat," was satisfied with the arrangement, but afterwards hearing that the otber creditors bad been paid m full he repudiated it, Griffen also told him that he was perfectly solvent at the time, and that be should have received 20s m the £, Mr M. Friedlander holding security over property worth £200 and his (Grlffeu's) liability to him being only some £25. He further admitted his liability and expressed his willingness to pay the fnll amount if Mr Friedlander wonld let him. At the time the reoelpt waa given for the cheque for £25 paid by M. Friedlander to Makeig, the former applied for Griffon's bill. Makeig gave him a bill which, though not aotually the right one, was for some time mistaken by both parties for It. — Tbe plaintiffs asked ihe Court to set aside their agreement to take £25 m settlement of tbe debt of £47 on the ground that they had been induced to make it by means of representations which were not correct. — Evidence was given for the plaintiffs by Messrs A. Cur tip, F. Makeig, I>. Thomas, and M. Griffen. ! Tha latter In cross-examination admitted, tbat m May last he conld not have binif self satisfied all the claims against himsel and he regarded Mr M, Friedlander as his agent. He held himself responsible for the payment of the bill to Max Friedlander. — When Mr Griffen had concluded his evidence, tbe Magistrate eald that be did not think It of any ase to proceed further with the case. He had no doubt the receipt given by Mr Makeig was a Jegal settlement and there waß the further circumstance of the banding over of • promissory note, for although it was not the right one it was the only one to be got at It had been shown that m May latt the defendant was actually dependent npon Mr Max Friedlander, and he had no doubt tbat at tbe time of accepting the £25 Mr Makeig thought 'he waß doing his beßt for his firm. At the same time it appeared evident chat the plaintiffs were j morally entitled to the money. — The ] Magistrate spoke very highly of the honest •nd straightforward way m which the defendant had given his evidence.— Mr Purnell said that if he were allowed to call Mr Friedlander he would be able; to show the alleged misrepresentation m a very different aspect. — The Magistrate did not think it would be any use to prolong the case. — A nonsuit, without costs, weareootficL

I Holmes v. Lancaster claim £16 2s 9d -Mr Wilding for plaintiff, Mr Purnell for defendant. — After evidence had been taken at considerable length, judgment waa given for plaintiff for £7 Is lOd and coats. Ashburton Bread Company v. H. J. Jones, claim £6 9j 4d. Mr Cuthbertson for plalntifft. Judgment for plaintiffj for s mount claimed. I Tbe Oourt then rose. ! f ... . ■