THE NORTH.

Evening Star, Volume VIII, Issue 2278, 25 August 1870, Page 2

THE NORTH.

lu commenting on the sentences recently imposed on the owner and the master of the Enicrpi'he, tho Thames Advertiser says “An effort ought to b e made amongst the masters and owners of vessels to obtalp a remission of the alternative of imprisonment, at least in the case of the owner, who hud so recently come into possession of the boat, and who was not responsible for the control of the vessel so long as he employed a master. The circumstances connected with the accident are truly painful, hut we deprecate the notion of showing such severity towards an unoffending owner, We hear the owner, who is an enterprising young man, is already ruined hy the loss of the craft, without suffering three mouths’ incarceration to satisfy the blundering of the Customs department, who are alone responsible for the departure of any vessel without compliance Avith the regulations they profess to carry into effect. We hope to see the memorial of this unjust sentence numerously signed by the community of the Thames and Auckland.”

The Canterbury Government offer the unemployed of Christchurch 3s toyis according to the number of family. ti H'"; There are some Maori aspirants for the prize ring at Says the Herald of the 9th iust. **’Early in the afternoon, opposite the Prince of -Wales Hotel, a crowd

of Maoris and Pakel;§B gathered round two pugilistically-incliae'd-* who had had a slight squabble previously, which had ended in one of them staking L 5 for a fresh encounter, but his opponent, not being flush of cash, declined to cover the stakes. This enraged the more wealthy Maori, who struck out in the most approved style, but was stopped by his seconds from doing any serious damage. Wo left them warring with hard words instead of blows.

in the Auckland police court the other day the “ stealing of specimens” case occupied the attention of the Bench most of the day. The most painful feature in the case is that the main witness in the prosecution, and wlr> had volunteered to prosecute, is brother-in-law to the prisoner, and has brought forward his wife and her sister to bear witness against their brother, and that he had tendered his evidence on condition of getting a situation ! The feeling in the Court was very pronounced against the witness, It will be remembered that the main witness was tarred and feathered on again making his appearance at the Thames. A very graceful act was performed last week by the Wellington Association of Licensed Victuallers while performing the funereal rites over their own Society. The Association has been in existence for many years, but its members had gradually arrived at the conclusion that a further continuance of its existence would serve no useful purpose. But there was a credit balaucc of a little'over L 22, of which Lls was unanimously voted to the fund for the relief of the widows and orphans of D'OSQ lost in the Tauranga, and the remainder given to a respected member of the Association. A case was decided the other day at the Canterbury County Court which involves the question of the supposed non-liability of the husband for debts contracted by his wife subsequent to the publication by tbo former of a notice that he w 11 not be responsible for the same. AMr Creed sued one Brown, a piillcr, for L 5 odd, being for the maintenance of defendant's wife, who was daughter of the plaintiff. Bi'ov/n ai;d Creed were married last year, and shortly afterwards tRe husband discovered tb it his wife was run-

ning into debt for the necessaries of the household, although he handed her his wages weekly, amounting to 245. After several quarrels and reconciliations, the parties separated, Brown having determined not to live any longer with his wife, who thereupon went to live with her father at Paversham. _ Brown inserted an advertisement in a local newspaper, stating that he would not be responsible for any credit given to his wife, The claim made by the plaintiff was for board and lodging at the rate of 6s a week, and for other necessaries supplied to defendant’s wife. The Judge, in deciding the case, remarked that defendant had himself put away his wife, and there could bo no putting away of a wife so as to relieve a husband from iris liability to maintain her, unless it was shown sho had committed adultery. Is T o such allegation was made in the present case. With respect to the insertion of an advertisement, that only protected a husband from a wife pledging his credit for what were extravagancies, but it did not by any means relieve him from his liability in respect to what were necessaries. His Honor made au order for the amount claimed.