RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3438, 27 February 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Friday, February 27. (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness,—Thomas Andrews, not appearing, was fined 10% or forty-eight hours’; John Williams, ss, or forty-eight hours’. Order under the Married Women’s Protection Act.—Mr Sanders applied for an.order under the above Act on behalf of Eleanor Carpenter, who gave evidence as to the grounds on which the application was based. She stated that she and her husband had been in the Colony about two years, during which time she had earned a living by keeping boarders. Her husband stayed with her, but never did any work or provided for her maintenance in any way—spending his time in drinking and smoking. He used to take money from her and also pledge her things, so as to get drink. If he did sometimes earn a few shillings it would be spent in the same way. He had been drunk about Christmas, again in January, and was drunk now ; in fact, so long as he could get a sixpence he would net be sober.—The order was granted. CIVIL OASES. A. and T. Ingiis v. Austin.—Claim Ll2 5s 2d, tor goods supplied. Mr Harris appeared for plaintiffs, Mr tfi. Cook for defendant.—Alexander Inglis stated that defendant had often admitted the debt, and expressed a desire to “ work it out,” being a shoemaker by trade. The geods were supplied to the wife of defendant before marriage, they being articles for the wedding outfit, in fact. Cross-examined : The lady who was a Miss Mitchell, used* to deal at witness’s shop before she married defendant.—Alfred Austin, defendant, said that plaintiff had offered him wages at the rate of L2 10s per week, so that he could work out the claim, but this witness was unable r 0 d *°; a ™, he had a year’s engagement to work for Mr Thomson, of George street, who was teaching him the trade and allowing him LI per week and a house to live in. Crossexamined : Had no other means of earning a living, nor did his wife earn anything.—Mr Cook pleaded non-joinder, and also that a husband could not be held liable, for debts contracted by his • wife before marriage j 9 .’, Sfcreefc > Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages, proved the marriage of delendant and his wife, and the consent of the mother of the latter—Eliza Austin, wife of defendant, stated that she was married on March 29, last year, when she was eighteen years old. Cross-examined : The person spoken of as her mother was really no relation of hers, as she was only an adopted child His Worship thought he must sustain the plea of non joinder, as a husband cannot be sued alone for debts contracted by his wife before marriage. There would not be much harm done to plaintiffs by judgment being given against them, as they could bring the action m the proper form. . Judgment for defendant, without'costs, his Worship saying that the defence set up was a shabby one. in M ’ Liske y v ’ °^ a Anderson.—Claim, Ll 12s 6d, for a pair of boots. Judgment by default for plaintiff for amount claimed, with costa.

Thomson and another v. Hugh Calder.— Claun, LIOO, for loss an.-i damage sustained in December hut by defendant refusing to supply, as per contract, the steamer Jane wuh a cargo of timber and sleepers. Mr Haggxtt appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Macassey for defendant, who pleaded no jurisdiction to entertain the claim, and also non-liability Mr Haggitt admitted that the breach of contract occurred in Southland, where defendant resides, but contended that so long as the cause of action or a materi- < lj ,o ‘ afc arose within the jurisdiction of this Court, the plea of non could not stand. The contract in this case was tnade in, Dunedin, and. therefore within the jurisdiction of the Court,-His Worship said the point was a novelty and of considerable importance, and he should like to reserve Jus decision on it; but counsel wishing him to decide at once, he pioceeded. Keeping in view (bis Worship said) the intentien shown by the statute, viz, to localise the administration of justice, he was averse to supporting the jurisdiction of this Court in the present case. Assuming there was a breach of contract, he took Mr Macassey’s view of the case, and thought the cause of action without that jurisdicton. Owes such as this often lead to great inconvenience and hardships, through defendants' and witnesses having to travel many miles. This he looked upon as a stretch of the law, the duty of which was to follow defendant to his own home. He approached a decision in the case with some hesitation, it being one of a very novel nature, but stiU found he could do nothing but sustain the plea. Judgment was given for defendant.—Mr Haggitt gave notice of appeal.