RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Cromwell Argus, Volume III, Issue 125, 2 April 1872, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT, CROMWELL.

Thursday, March 23. J (Before E. If. Cnrcw, E.M) i I PROVINCIAL Government v. Wilson.— This ipis an application for an order to compel Mrs |aue Wilson, of Shepherd’s Creek, Bannockburn, I'M contribute towards the support of her chib j ’■Hen, who are inmates of the Industrial School, ! iHinedin. —Constable Walsh stated that the defendant was willing to contribute towards the Bpport of the children, but that she could not | oßord to pay very much, as she was only keep>c|pb a small store of a very inferior class at the j Hnnockburn. Nothing was known about the B|hor of the children.—The Magistrate made an I Siller that Mrs Wilson should pay ss. per week I each child, to commence on Monday (yesterBy), and the first payment to be made on Wed1’ lesday,—Monday and Tuesday being holidays. Magistrate also stated that Mrs Wilson ip gdit to have appeared and given evidence as to er, capability of paying. hj. »olice v. Hudson : Sly Grog Selling.— , Bmnas Hudson was charged with selling spirits | m'arrickton on the 10th March, he not being! ielgy licensed.-Mr Allanby, for the defendant, | J*-lcd not guilty.—-Sergt. Morton called Jesse sci ir- v ’ "’b°» being sworn, stated that lie was a tt'ised hotelkeeper, residing at Carrickton. On J ' i l( %> Kith of March, he went into defen-1 :K Sg s ail( l bought two glasses of rum, paying Is. | ■ them.— -Martin Brick, sworn, asked who was! o|iay his ex) tenses ?—Tlio Magistrate said that U- 1 - is.must give his evidence, as this was a criminal i ,ml Bseeution.— In reply to Sergeant Morton, the! It- If 1088 stated he did not remember being in the i the H en, bant’s house on the 10th of March.—Mr ■“"by contended that the information ought I dismissed, as there was no evidence that j pmr was of sufficient strength to make the hut liable Under the 59th clause of the ance.— L’lio Magistrate upheld the ohjccand stated that lie considered the Ordiwas defective. The Court did not see he objection could be got over. Case disw Pf.rrtam r. Ap.cn. M‘Leod.—This was IR °r £l2, being £7 for the purchase of a i and £5 expenses incurred in trying to cr the price cd the horse. The plaintiff did jppear. Mr Brough stated there was no for tlio claim. The defendant had )ri *ugat in from Rocky Point, and he asked is nil expenses to be allowed against the -Vb'V 1 ? 6 brack out, and £2 2s. expenses e 'l to defendant. iff T' 1 n b-'-ULTwr.i.L.—No appearance of -ant- Plaintiff proved the service of the |J n L and stated that the amount claimed WaS , for (,nc nn ' l a half week’s hoard A c ‘ laa lc »t. Judgment for full amount