LAW REPORTS.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1441, 16 May 1912, Page 3

LAW REPORTS.

LOWER COURT. (Before Mr. W. G. Riddell, S.M.) LATE SUPERINTENDENT O'BRIENWIFE'S POSITION. LEFT TOTALLY DESTITUTEConsiderable reference to the lalo supermtendent of the City Fire Brigade was made at the Magistrate's Court yesterday, when Jane Harding O'Brien applied for summary separation from her husband, William Stephen O'Brien, and for maintenance and guardianship orders against him in the case of one child. Jfr. E. J. Fitzgibbon represented Mrs. O'Brien.

Mr. Ktzgibbon suid that the application was made under tho Destitute Persons Act, and that the complaint was that 0 Brien had wilfully failed to provide for the maintenance of his wife and child. Until recently O'Brien had been superintendent of the Wellington City iire Brigade, but, some little time ago he had left them. . Before departing ho had left his wife a note, stating that he was going, and that he wishod to prepare her for the shock. At present no one knew where O'Brien was, and Mrs. O'Brien and the invalid child were absoutely destitute. , Since August there had been in existence an agreement by which O'Brien had had to pay his wife',£l2 10s. per month. She had received no 'money from him for the last two weeks.

In evidence, Mrs. O'Brien stated that her husband had been in receipt of a salary of ,£365 per year. On May 4. she had received the .note which Mr. Fitzgibbon had alluded to. She had been told that her husband had been seen on board the steamer Aorangi, bound for San Francisco. Their invalid daughter was eleven years old. They had been thirteen years married. The furniture left with her was worth about .£3O.

Subsequently it was stated that the furniture had been valued at about .£ls.

His Worship thought that ex parto proceedings had been justified. He granted a separation, gave the mother guardianship of tho child, and ordered O'Brien to pay £1 10.0. per week towards the support of his wife, and £\ per week towards the child's support. Defendant O'Brien was also ordered to pay <£5 in respect of past maintenance, and to pay i; 2 2s. solicitor's fee. 'Honeys now due, and to become due, are to be a charge on the personal property of the defendant.

CHARGE WITHDRAWN. "ALL A MISUNDERSTANDING." A case in which Robert Cooper proceeded against Tasman John Chamberlain Gurr, alleging that defendant, while having in his possession a promissory note for £U5 18s. 7d., had fraudulently converted .£IOO of it to his own 'use; and, also, had fraudulently converted the promissory noto to his uao &y transferring it to the Union Bank of Australia, was called on. Mr. Treadwell appeared lor tho complainant, and Mr. l'utnain for the defendant.

Mr. Treadwell said that he proposed to ask the Court ■to grant leave to withdraw the information. The .£IOO had been "found" by friends of tho defendant, and the Court would seo that the case was one in which it would have difficulty in committing defendant for trial, and in which there would be no chance of a jury convicting. Mr. Putnam said that defendant had had no intention of defrauding tho informant. Cooper had been an agent for defendant, and for the purposes of tho agency a promissory note had been given ))y .Cooper to Gurr, on the understanding that it was to be used only in a certain event. The charge of fraud was based on the fact that the note had been put into the bank. Gurr had made no secrecy about his putting the note into the bank, and had Gurr understood tho position as Cooper had done, the charge would never have arisen. The whole trouble was through a misunderstanding as to what was to be done v;ith the note.

His Worship said that he thought that some evidence should be called to satisfy the Court that the case was one which should never have been brought. Robert Cooper, the informant, was called. He deposed that the promissory note was a ,£IOO security against any possible misappropriation of his while he was defendant's agent, and the £\5 18s. 7d. represented the value of goods he had owed tor. The note, it had been agreed, was not to be used except in tho event of misappropriation on the informant's part. But on about September 8 *he Union Bnnk of Australia had advised him that the promissory note had been lodged as security for an overdraft. The Union Bank hail sued him for tho amount, and he had confessed judgment. First of all defendant had sent in his resignation, and he had then telegraphed three times to Gurr. Four days later he had received this telegram from Gurr: "Regret misunderstanding. No cause anxiety." His Worship: I am satisfied from the evidence that defendant could not be convicted.

Mr. Treadwell: I take it that the information may be withdrawn. That was my application, in which Mr. Putnam concurred.

His Worship: I am prepared to dismiss :he information on the evidence produced. Mr. Treadwell: I prefer that my application should be acceded to, your Worship.

His Worship: Yes, I think that that can be done. . . . The information will bo withdrawn by leave, of the Court. SAILOR IN TROUBLE. A charge of having been absent without leave from the steamer Gertio on May It was made against Arthur Pearcey. 'Defendant pleaded guilty. Mr. A. L. Herdman, who appeared for (he owners of the vessel, asked for the imposition of a severe penalty. He said that defendant was liable to lose two days' pay and to be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings. The vessel had been delayed through defendant's action, and tho owners had been put to expense. In order that other seamen might take warning, Mr. Herdman asked that a substantial penalty would be made against defendant.

The Court ordered that Pearcey should forfeit two days' pay, and bear the Court costs (75.), and solicitor's fee (£1 Is.). .

WIFE DESERTION ALLEGED. Andrew Reid was charged with having failed to provide for his wife, Christina Reid. Chief-Detective Broberg said that Reid had been arrested on a warrant issued at Invercargill. Reid was thereupon remanded to appear at Invercargill. A BROKEN JAW. On a charge of having assaulted William Corncross io as to cause him bodily linrni, John M'Cieady was committed for trial. Mr. .T. J. M'Grath appeared for tho defendant. The evidence for the informant was to the effect that the parties had been working K'.'olhor on the wharf. M'Crendy had asked Carueross to do something, and because Carncross hail not done it. inimpdinlely hud struck, him. The blow had bnikcil Cawcross's jaw. OTHER CASES. For insobriety Thomas Mulligan, James Devonie, and John Tlydo were each fined 10s.; and Arthur Hngney and John Taylor were each fined j>l. Philip Sharkey was fined ,C 3 for having broken a prohibition order. Alfred Edward Laney was sentenced to one month'." imprisonment for having disobeyed a maintenance order.