MAGISTERIAL.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1639, 18 August 1887, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

ASHBURTON-TatS DAY.

. (Before Mr John Ollivler, B.M)

DESTITUTE PERSONS ACT. Christopher Harrold issued his children, Elizabeth Norman, Mary Ana Harrold, Jano Smith, Thomas Harrold, Christopher Harrold, and Anr.lo Harrold for maintenance.— -Mr Oathbertson for complainant, Mr OHep for defendant— Evidence- wm taken as iollows :— Dr Tweed stated tbat he had examined the complainant. He wai not fit to perform any hard labor. — The complaluanc stated that his ohildren would not now support him He had six ohildren earning wages, He had tr!ed to obtain work but without success— Mr Oriap crossbxamined the witness, and elloite i that he hid during the last few months obtained several small sums of money by sales of oittle and sheep. — By Mr Oathbertson : Witness had been compelled lately to negotiate a loan, m order to live.-— Me Crisp contended that the Information had not been proved. The Aot set forth that It was neoesaary for the complainant to prove— (l) that he was a destitute penon ; (2) that the persons summoned were new relation*; and (3) that they were able to eon* tribute towards the complainant's support. He (Mr Crisp) was prepared to. show that tho oomplaiaant was not destitute. Furthermore, the oomptalnant's case had not dieoloaed that the persons summone were near relations or that they were able to support complainant.— The Magistrate, said that he did not agree with Mr Orlsp, Tha defendants were Summoned to show cause why they should not contribute towards the complainant's support j if Mr Crisp did not call them to give evidence the Boncb would — Mr Oclsp submitted that it was, even admitting the Magistrate's view of the case, incumbent on -the complainant to make out a prima foci* oaae, ' and this, be maintained, had not been — After some further argument; Mr Crisp opened the oase for the defence. — J. Smith, son-in-law of the complainant, said that he had offered the complainant a home but he had refused It unless he received 53 a week m addition. When the complainant was residing with other members of the family witness supplied the housawjth meat, milk, and butter, and by this means, he thought, contributed to complainant's support.— By Mr Cuihbertson: Witness did not know whe'hur the. complainant had been finding his own victuals. The family assisted to keep Mrs Harrold, senr., and two young children.— P. Norman, son-in-law of complainant, ssid that Htrrold was able to do any ordinary light work, and had done Buoh for him. Witness had a wife and family to keep and work had been Blaak m his line of late.— o.. Harrold, groom at Longbeaoh, said that he was receiving 22a 6d a week, out of which he paid 4. 6i a week to tho Bailding Society for his mother's house. — By Mr Cuthbertson : For two months cf the last year witness* received 30s a week and fees amounting to £7 10a. —The complainant was re-oalled by the Bench ani examined at length as to the cost of livelihood and the money received by him.— The Magistrate said, that it bad been shown that the defendant was that most trying, of trying things, a troublesome old man. At the same time this did not absolve bis children from all responsibility for his maintensnoa. The complainant had ad* mitted his ability to do light work,. and the Bench would, therefore, pot make the order for the full 15s as that would relieve him from all work. An order wm made for 7a 63, and by consent of the defendants, to apply: at present against Christopher Harrold. -. CIVIL OABES. ; : Orr and Aloorn v. Penllngton, claim £12 19j 10i.- Judgment by default for the amount claimed and coats. Mftaon v Orborne, claim £16 lls 6d, — lho defendant had written to Mr ruthbertßon asking that an application be made for an ndjonrnment for a fortnight, but the plaintiff objected to this course. — The claim was one for wages and riding m various races.— Judgment was given for the amount claimed, but the Magistrate made tin order, on the application of Mr Cuihbertson, staying execution for a fortnight. Gardner v Jephson, claim £4 12s.— -Tne defendant had paid £3 on account cf plaintiff. The claim was for trees alleged to have be«n snpplied and labor m connection with planting the same — The defendant stated that the plaintiff had grcat'y over charged him, havli g wrongly mated the numbor of trees, and m addition having oharged for labor more than was stipulated by an agreement made. — Judgment was given for the amount darned and costs. Patton v Hewett, claim £16 on a dishonored promissory note. Judgment by default for the amount claimed and ousts. Andrews v Hoult, claim £7 19i for wages, Mr Outhbertson for plaintiff, Mr Cayglll for the defendant — The case wai adjourned for a . week m order that the plaintiff might give fuller particulars regarding ono of tha items of his olalmOrr and Alcorn v D*v2es, . judgment summons, £21 l?s 31. Order made that the amount be paid m instalments of £5 a ra nth, la default two months imprisonment. The Court then rose.