RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Volume IX, Issue 2712, 26 October 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

This Day. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Civil Cases. Cntten (Provincial Treasurer) v.'McDonald. been granted, no aetion having been taken, Mr Saunders for the plaintiff, applied to have the order for a rehearing discharged, so that execution might issue. A letter was put in from Mr Stamper, solicitor, to Mr Bathgate, Provincial Solicitor, as follows: “Mr Stewart, appeared iu my stead in defence, but as I have several times written to the defendant, on the 20th September and the 20th instant, without receiving auy reply, I am not at present considering myself in any way professionally concerned for him (as i fancy he must have received my letters). Until I am again instructed, I positively decline acting for him either in this or any oth'-r affair. But if I hear from him shortly I will let you know.” His Worship said that ihe order for rehearing having been granted by Mr Strode, he did not feel at liberty to direct its discharge, as he did not sea that the case was properly before him. No day had been appointed for the re hearing, and therefore he did not think he had jurisdiction. TRESPASS. Samuel Turner was charged, on the information of the Master of the Benevolent Institution with wilfully trespassing on the gardens of the Institution, and refusing to leave when warned and directed to do so. Mr Higgitt conducted the prosecution, and Mr Edward Cook appeared for the defence. Mr Haggitt stated that defendant and his wife were at one time master and matron of the Institution, hut owing partly thi-ough illtreatment of his wife apd partly from other causes, ho’ was dismissed and she was allowed to retain her situation. In consequence of his cruelty his wife determined never to live with him again, and obtained an order from the Court, under the Married Woman’s Property Protection Act, to retain her earnings for her own use Apparently, either to compel his wife to live with him or for the purpose of annoying her so as to procure her discharge, he has frequently gone to the Institution and demanded to sec her. He has beep invariably refused ; but his conduct Avas exceedingly annoying to the inmates and so distressing to her that ultimately she would have to leave, if not protected by the decision of the Court. Supposing he claimed the right to insist upon his right to take bis wife to live with him, an Ecclesiastical Court alone could deal with

that question; for no Cqurt of Common Law could compel a woman to return to her husband who voluntarily lived separately from him. Several cases were cited in support of this view, The annoyances tp the inmates by defendant’s conduct were very great, especially two who were sick. The whole of the inmates were nervously apprehensive of his visits. One who was ip Consumption was subjected to great suffering and danger. His practice was to ring the bell at one door or another until it was ansvyered, when he demanded to sep his wife, and on being refused he atempted to force himself into the house, but allowed himself to be led pff the grqunds by Mr Roberts, the master, without resistance. This could not

be considered leaving.when warned without violence, and, should he persist, a greater degree of force won d probably be used, which he (VJ r Haggitt) considered would be perfectly justifiable.' His visits were not merely once a day, but as many as three times. David Iloherfs, master of the Benevolent Institution, confirn'ied ttyese statements. _On the 23rd hist, he presented himself twice. Dr Hoeken, medical adviser to the institution being in attendance on some sick children, was very much annoyed an I interrupted by the violent ringing of the bell by the defendant, and remonstrated with him as to his conduct, when he refused to go away without his wife, and said he should go every day until she consented to live with him. In cross examination, he said he considered such conduct calculated to act detrimentally on the health of the sick inmates. Mrs Tamer was a most invaluable woman, and, as one of the Committee, lie was most desirous her services should be retained, Mr Cook addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendant, and maintained that the husband had a right and title to demand his wife, and that he had a right of action against anyone harboring her. He wished to put the defendant into the box to make a statement, but this, being contrary to the rules of Court, was not allowed until Mr Haggitt said he would offer no objection. He merely confirmed what had been stated, with the exception of saying that Roberts struck him, and Dr Hoeken called him a low blackguard. Oa several occasions he had had dirty water 'brown upon him, and had bear beaten round the garden with sticks, and used in a most brutal manner. John Langmuir, gardener, said he saw Turner shoved about in a violent manner by Roberts, and his impression was that it was done by Mr Martin’s Instructions. In cross-examination, he said he did not notice the time Turner was in the grounds. His Worship said it appeared to him if Turner considered himself aggrieved, he had the opportunity of applying for tho order to be rescinded. So long as it was in force, he was clearly of opinion he was not entitled to seek to recover his wife ; otherwise, the aoi would he entirely futile. What was the use, of protecting a woman’s property against her husband, if he retained power over her body, and in the second section of the Act it was provided that on the issue of such an order, in every ease a woman benefitted by it should be considered a femme sole, capable pf sqjng and being sued. He considered it a case on Which a penalty should be imposed, and he could not think the proviso af; the end of the section should be allowed to interfere with that decision, because he did not not think a person offending as the defendant had done, had a fair and reasonable supposition to justify him in doing the act complaiped of. If he had, he wpuld have taken proceedings for assault. It seemed to him a systematised proceeding of annoyance. He should lix the penalty |p the present casp at 40s and costs.

Mr Cook applied for a mitigation of the penalty, whiou, in the circumstances of the defendant, was excessive.

Mr Haggitt would not press for its being so heavy, if some promise were given to cease the annoyance. The defendant said be would rather pay the penalty than promise anything of the sort, .and at once paid it.

The Victorian Parliament has voted a bonus of LSOOO for the first 500 tpnf of beetroot sugar manufactured iu the colouy.