RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3300, 17 September 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Wednesday, September 17. ([Before I. N. Watt, Esq,, R.M.)

Meikie v. Harper.—lbis was an action brought by Jane Meikie, wife of an express driver, to compel defendant to support her illegitimate child, of which he was stated to be the father. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, Mr M‘Keay for defendant. —Mr Stout explained the case, stating that he would prove by evidence and the defendant's own admission that defendant was father of the child, which is now three years and five months of age.—Mr M'Keay, for the purpose of argument, admitted the paternity, and then proceeded to show that plaintiff’s marriage to Meikie after the birth of the child released defendant from the liability. The details he/Mp M'Keay) thought would be better kept from the pap of the public, and he would therefore rest upon ■fclxe following argument : — By statute 4 and 5, William IY., chap. 76, section 57, it was enacted that any man marrrying a woman wjio has a legitimate or illegitimate child shall be liable for the support of such child ; and thecasepE Langy, Spicer (Leesonand Welsby, vol. i., p. 129) shoiyeji that such was the case, for it decided that thp liability of the putative,father ceased pa the of thp mother to another man, and toft liability was thpn imposed on the husband, who, if he take the benefit of a wife, must take the bmden also. —Mr Stojjt costen,ded that the statute referred to bad no application in New Zealand, for it distinctly applied to only England and Wales, Even if it did at any time apply, it was now repealed by the Destitute Persons Relief Ordinance, which ruled here, and which was in direct conflict with that statute. His Worship was inclined to think the statute applicable, but then arose

the question as to whether the Ordinance spoken of repealed it. He would adjourn the case to consider the point. Auld v. Patrick.—Claim L2O, for detention of a cow and calf, the property ot plaintiff. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stewart for defendant. Plaintiff stated that he had a cow worth Ll4, and a calf worth Ll, at Mr Wrayburn’s, of which defendant obtained possession, refusing to give them up to witness, saving Wray burn owed him money. Cross-examined : 1 let Wrayburn have the use of the cow for its keep, but would not sell it to Mm. When I went to defendant ior the cow I showed him an order V\ rayburn had given me to lift the cow at any time 1 liked.—John Gray : I am attorney for Mr Wray burn, who is now in England. He informed me before he went away that the cow belonged to plaintiff, — James Patrick, defendant: On December 24, last year, Wray burn gave me possession of the cow to milk. He owed me LIO at the time and does so still. I knew nothing of the cow belonging to plaintiff until the 17th August, when he came and asked me for it, saying he had an order for it from Wrayburn. He would not show me the order, but said it was dated November, while I did not get possession of it till December. The cow is worth about L 6, and the calf about 7s. —Cross-exam ned : It was Mrs Wrayburn who banded over the cow to me. I knew that she and Mr Wrayburn had quarrelled and were separated at the time, but I did not say anything to the latter about the cow before taking it, '1 hey were together and separated several times.—Wm. Henderson : I am a farmer on the Peninsula, living near Mr Wrayburn’s property. I have seen the cow, and consider it worth about L 7 and the calf about 7s,—His Worship ordered the cow and calf to be given up to plaintiff, defendant to pay costs. Gray v. Hall.—Claim L 9 Os lOd, for timber supplied. Mr Stout appeared for plaintiff, Mr Wilson for defendant. This case had been heard before (on August 27), and plaintiff was then nonsuited for the amount now claimed, but obtained judgment for one item of 9s.—John Gray ; I was not aware that the amount I now claim was due, as my clerk omitted to carry it forward in opening a new ledger. Defendant has often told me that he had a receipt for the amount, but could never produce it.—William JReid, clerk at Mr Gray’s : I was in the habit of receiving money for plaintiff, and never received this amount in question. There was a clerk named Edmonson in the office of plaintiff at the time, but he was not in the habit of receiving moneys.—William Hall: I was summoned for this amount before (on August 27), when judgment was given for me. I paid this claim the same year as I got the goods in. Cross-examined : I paid the amount to a clerk to whom plaintiff referred me. Judgment reserved. Meenan v. Woodmore.—Claim L 3 13s lOd, balance of account for groceries supplied. Judgment by default for plaintiff lor amount claimed, with costs.