RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 3465, 31 March 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Tuesday, March 31. ~ (Before J. Bathgate, Esq., R.M.) Drunkenness.— Humphrey Humphries was fined ss, with the option of 24 hours’ imprisonment. Maintenance. —Chao. Webb was charged with neglecting to contribute towards the support of an illegitimate child belonging to one Ellen Baxter, and of which he was alleged to be the father. ’' Mr "tewart for complainant, Mr M‘Keay for defendant. Mr M'Keay made a preliminary objection that the girl’s name appeared differently in the information, which was signed by ‘‘ Ellen ” Baxter, while in the body of the document it was “ Helen ” Baxter. His reason for putting forth the objection was that defendant had repeatedly offered to marry the girl, and was willing to do so im mediately.—His Worship: Then I suppose the parentage is admitted?—Mr M'Keay had not admitted anything. The defen dant made ‘ a fair offer. -Mr Stewart : If defendant cannot provide for the child, surely he cannot keep both the mother and child. -Defendant’s conduct throughout wa disgraceful, and now he wanted to marry the girl. The parents did not wish to have their daughter, who was only sixteen years

of age, married.—His Worship said were he to express an opinion, he should say defendant’s conduct had been highly reprehensible. —Mr M ‘Keay asked what better reparation a man could make than to offer to marry his victim.-Mr Stewart could not see, what the question, of marriage had to do with the matter. The parents asked that defendant should be called on to pay 10s a .week to the child’s support —Mr M‘Keay agreed to allow ss. The. amount asked by complainant was the. maximum. He understood, .that defendant was willing to take charge of the child.—His Worship: Whoever heard of an illegitimate child taken charge of by the father?—Mr M'Keay :It is only ah offer,—And an offer that can never be listened to.—(Laughter.}—Thomas-Webb and defendant wore then examined as to the latter’s means.—Defendant stated he was thirty-three years old, and earned 8s a-day, and his Worship made an order for the payment of 8s a week—one shilling per day for the child’s maintenance, and one shilling per week for its clothing—together with costs. Trumpery Cases. —Monson v. Blapey, Mon-on v. Manning, and Monson v. Holmes, all neighbors’ quarrels, were dismissed. Brbachof Harbor Kequlations. —Henry Tompkins was charged by Henry Orkney, Deputy Harbor-Master, with refusing to

shift the lighter Secret, of 'Which he was master, from the wharf, when ordered to do so. case adjourned till Thursday. CIVIL CASKS. Gregg v. 'Krull.-Claim Ll9 17s lOd, goods sold and delivered. Mr Stout for plaintiff, Mr 1 Chapman for defendant.—Mr Chapman said that his principal defence was a “set-off.”—Mr Stout contended that the set-off being for over LIOO did not come within the jurisdiction of the Court.—Plaintiff said he sent some coffee to defendant, for which he now sued; a receipt for the amount {LI9 17s lOd) was given. The amount was'still owing Krull stated that he sent witness some coffee—that mentioned in the set-off. Witness bad not received it. The Bank of New Zealand had charge of it.—Cross-examined : Never aboepted a bill for the^ amount. —Mr Chapman having argued

the objections raised to the set-off, and Mr Stout having replied, his Worship said he would take time to consider the matter. Hayman and Co. v. Lazarus -Claim, L 5 5a Id, for goods soldftand delivered. Mr Stout for defendant j Mr Stewart for plaintiffs. —Mr Stout said that plaintiffs had failed to comply with the Act by not giving detailed particulars of their claim. Defeufendant always wanted to pay the amount but could not get a bill of particulars —Mr Stewart pointed out that defendant bought all the things at one time, and the transaction was looked upon as a cash one. Detaxied particulars were consequently not kept, as defendant was to have paid cash on delivery of the goods, which he failed to do. —His Worship considered that the case - Mr Stoufc pleading “not indebted. —Defendant, examined by Mr Stout, stated that he purchased an assortoaT a ? d °ther things from plainSeptember last Could not swear whether he got delivery of the gopds, Always told plaintiffs he did net dispute the claim, and would s ttle it if he got a proper Was ..now .. willing.. to pay the, atabunt if prop* dhtfiulii wtexe giYep,*«J

employ,.delivered a lot of vases in %ugust last at defendant a place. Delivered - an invoice a< same time. Gave the things to a man in the shop.—John 0. Cameron, ateo in plaintiff’s emph-y, said that defendant bad transactions with teem, but he was not a credit customer. —Mr Stout contended that his Worship could not give judgment. It had only been proved that Lazarus wont to the store and bought some goods, but the amount was not added in his presence. Defendant did not receive the goods, his man getting them, and plaintiffs declined to show how the amount was made up.—His Worship adjourned the case till Wednesday week, adding that if he could have settled the matter at once he would have commented on defendant’s conduct.