RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Evening Star, Issue 4117, 8 May 1876, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Monday, May 8. (Before J.,Bathgate, Esq., R.M.)

Judgment went by default in the following case Watson v. Alves, claim L 27, for a dishonored cheque. Leary and Graham v. Alfred bims.— Claim ou a judgment summons. Mr Hay appeared for plaintiffs, but defendant did not appear.—Mr Hay stated that defendant was in receipt of a pension and should be able to pay the amount sued for.—His Worship ordered the defendant to pay the claim by instalments of LI per month, or go to gaol for fourteen days. Stamper v. the City Corporation.—ln this case, which has already been three times before the Court, Mr Massey (Town Clerk) had applied for a rehearing; but Mr Stamper now lodged a statement to the effect that he would forego his claim for costs, as the Resident Magistrate’s Court Act did not provide for the allowance of costs in cases of this nature.—His Worship accordingly gave judgment for defendants, with costs. Grace Johnson v. James Duray.—ln this case, the nature of which did not transpire, Mr A. Bathgate appeared for defendant. As there was no appearance of plaintiff she was nonsuited, with costs. Hooper v. Hooper.—Claim LlO 15s for household .furniture, bedding, dairy pro*

duce, etc wrongfully removed from plaintiff’s house by defendant. Mr Howorth appeared for plaintiff; Mr Stout for defendant.— Elbabeth Hooper, plaintiff, said she was wife of defendant, William Hooper. Witness obtained a protection order at the beginning of last month. She resided on property of her own at the Peninsula, but had not been to the hj mse from which the articles were taken for five weeks, having been staying with some friends. She had be n greatly inconvenienced by the removal of the things. Cross-examined: Witness had been living away from the house because she was afraid of her husband; but her son was living there. The things were taken away before the sth April, the date on which the protection order was granted. Re-examined : Witness used to go to the house occasionally, but could not stop there because tne bedding was taken away. Her husband had often ill-treated her.—James Hoopfer, son of the parties to the suit, said he was at home on April 6 when defendant came and took away the articles enumerated, threatening to “punch” witness if he interfered. -—Thomas Rowley said he was present when defendant took away the things from plaintiff 's home. Defendant, who was very violent, took away some butter that had been made the day before.—Mr Stout submitted that plaintiff must be non-suited, as defendant had received no notice of the protection order having been obtained by plaintiff. The Act laid down that such notice must be given before an action like Hie present could be brought.—His Worship said a protection order only applied to future

earnings by a wife, and not to property that really belonged to her husband. Whatever was the wife’s property up to the date of the order was the nusnand’s after the order was granted. She would be entitled to her wearing apparel, bat in this case that had not been taken away. Plaintiff would be nonsuited, without costs; but defendant must remember that until the protection order is set aside he cannot touch any of his wife’s property except at his own peril, and that by doing so he would render himself liable for heavy damages. Trustees of James Copeland v. TTndfield (Christchurch). —Claim, L 72 10a, for beer supplied. Mr Aldridge appeared for plaintiffs, Mr Nation for defendant.—Defendant’s evidence was read, (o the effect that ithe beer was sour and quite unsaleable, ancTthe evidence of two witnesses who had tested the beer was also read, and was of the warne purport. Mr Nation therefore submitted that judgment mast be given for defendant. —Mr Aldridge said plaintiff was willing to allow for such of the beer as was bad.—His Worship nonsuited plaintiff's, with costs to defendant, leaving it open for plaintiffs to sue again if the casks and beer were not returned. Left sitting.]