RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3302, 19 September 1873, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, September 19. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., R.M.)

Gray v. Hall.—His Worship gave judgment in this case, which was heard on the 17th instant, to the following effect From the evidence given the probabilities seemed as great on one side as on the other, and as the amount was for so long a time unclaimed the presumption was against the plaintiff. Judgment for defendant, without costs. Meikle v. Harper—This case was -adjourned from the 17th instant for his Worship to consider whether statute 4 and 5, William IV. chap. 76, section 57, or the Destitute Persons Relief Ordinance applied. His Worship now decide! that the two Acts would run together, and that therefore the case would be heard. Mr E. Cook, instructed by Mr Stout, appeared for plaintiff, Mr M'Keay for defendant. —Jane Moikle, plaintiff: lam the wife of John Meikle, to whom I was married in April, this year. Previously I was a spinster, and have known defendant for more than four years. First made his acquaintance at Portobello. The result of this acquaintance was The birth of the child on April 16, 1870. Defendant is the father of the child. Different parties have had the child in their care, but I have always paid for its support. I have never received anything from defendant for that purpose, though I have often asked him for assistance. Defendant was living at the West Taieri when the child was born. He never answered any of my letters since then, hut my husband received two letters from him. The letter produced is in his handwriting. Cross-examined : I applied to defendant for the maintenance of the child when the latter was about three weeks old, and again about six months after, I did not apply again because I could not get defendant’s address. I found it out when I married Meikle, who knew I had the child when he married me, and he applied again to defendant. 1 could not say what my husband earns, but I think about L 3 a week.— John Meikle : I am an express owner, and earn about L 3 a week, but, after paying expenses, I have oply about LI 15s a week left. 1 knew the defendant at the time the child was born. Before the child was born he was boasting about it, and said he would marry the mother. I did not see him again till this year, but wrote to him asking him to see his own child righted. He replied that he was not in a position to pay for the three years’ maintenance of the child—that I “ might as well ask him for the Province of Otago.” I saw him agaiu on the sth of this month, and he arranged to meet me at Hutchison’s Hotel, Great King street, where I was to bring his child, which he wished to see. I took, the child there and defendant took, it on his knee, and said I was “ keeping it well, for it looked stronger than any of his children by bis present wife.” He also said that that child was not the only one of his going about the Colony and Victoria also. At the same time, he showed me letters intimating that he would be a few months be in possession of L 2,000. Cross-examined : The L 2.000 is not the key to the whole affair ; I am not bringing this action for the sake of money. lam not a person of very delicate nerves, nor very sensitive. I am not ashamed to drag my wife into Court to prove that she has been unchaste, and has a bastard. I told defendant that if he gave me a promissory note for a certain amount there would be no more bother about it, but I only wanted the money to have it invested till the child is twenty-one years of age,—Frederick Harper, defendant, in answer to the Bench, stated that he was usually employed as a shepherd, and earned about 25s a week. He was mar ried, and had three children, and was now out of employment, but had received a letter Erem Home, stating that certain property had been left him which would realise about L 2,000. There was no stated time in which he might expect this money.—His Worship reserved judgment till Wednesday next. Christie v. Burnett.—Claim, L 22 15s, for promissory note, payable to Cable and Ce., with interest. Defendant admitted the debt, but pleaded inability to pay. Judgment for plaintiff for amount claimed, to be paid in instalments of LI per week, with costs.

Brogden and Sons v. Charles Low.— Claim, L4O 15a 4d, balance of promissory note for passage money from England to New Zealand, &c. Judgment, by default, for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costs.