RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4096, 12 April 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Wednesday, April 12. (Before T. A. Mansford, Esq., E.M.)

Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following cases with costs :—Fish v. John Alves, L2O 13s 2d; Mercer v. Augan, L 8 8s; Lyons v. Cunningham, L 6 on a promissory note-; M‘Far lane v. A. Clark, L 2' 3s; Leckie v. Prophet, 2a; Guthrie and Co, v. John Grant, L 33 10s on a promissory note.

M'Lennan v. White.—This was an adjourned claim for Lls 15s, for board and lodging. Mr G. Cook appeared for plaintiff, Mr Aldridge defended. Mrs White had left her husband’s house in consequence of some disturbance, and was forbidden to return. She lived with defendant, but had no money to pay for her board, her husband refusing to allow her money. The defence was that no action for maintenance could lie, Mrs White having voluntarily left her husband’s house, Mrs White, in the course of her evidence, said that the public-house in Albany street occupied by her husband belonged to her, being vested by her brother in her, but she received no rent from it. She had other small properties at Hampden.—Cross-ex-amined : For some time previous to her leaving her husband’s home, White had forbidden her to get drink from the bar. The day she left him he accused her of being drunk, and when he struck her she went away. Three years ago a deed of separation, whereby she was to receive 30s a week, was drawn up between herself and husband. She had refused to sign the deed. Her husband had charge of her children. Her husband had been complaining of her intemperate habits for seven years. She had been at the Captain Cook and Scotia Hotels, and on one occasion to the Crown Hotel. That was when she wanted to see Mr Aldridge. The cross-examination was not continued further. —David M‘Lellan, plaintiff, said that Mrs White had been boarding with him since November last. A week or two after she came to live with him he went to see Mr White at Mrs White’s request, and the former said his wife should never be in the house with him again.—Mr Aldridge here stated that the amount was admitted, but ulterior proceeding must follow. Defendant did not wish for other people to maintain his wife. —E, C. Strode, solicitor to Mrs White, said that a deed of separation between defendant and his wife had been drawn up. A copy of the deed was drawn up by Mr Aldridge, and, after some alterations, was agreed upon by witness and by Mr Aldridge on behalf of defendant. Defendant himsplf objected to the deed, and Mr Aldridge informed witness that he was to consider the deed as at an end.—No defence was offered, and judgment was given for plaintiff, with costs. His Worship regretted that, owing to a small difference, the matter shctald have come before the Court. His object in adjourning the case before was in the hope that a private settlement might be come to.