Feilding B.M. Court.

Feilding Star, Volume IV, Issue 70, 15 November 1883, Page 3

Feilding B.M. Court.

r- ♦ r Wedp-esdjlY, Nov. Ufch, 1883. (Before IL Ward, Esq., E.M.) WIFE DESERTION. Grantham v Grantham. — Defendant • was charged by his wife Louisa Grantham with deserting Iwr without affording her any Adequate means of support. So appearance of defendant. Complainant deposed that her husband left her in. January, 1883; the neparation l was by agreement, and he was to send her 10s per week; had only received a j . few sh .flings altogether; could not live | with him, as he was continually bullying | und beating her; had only a few articles •of furnitace in the house ; believed her I husband was earning good wages as a carpeater. ' Hie Worship paid he had received a letter from Grantham, in which he said lie womted ber to come back and live with iiim, offering her a comfortable home. \ Defendant said she couldn't and wouldn't return to him; wanted him to be compelled by law to pay the 10s per week as agreed? wouldn't live with hiui for a million' a minute; was uot not so fond of .getting black eyes and all that kiad of thing. Order was given for defendant to pay to the clerk of the court 5s per week for comphuaaat, and also costs of proceed* CIVIL CASES. W. G. Haybittle r Jno Edgar. Judgment summons for .£4 10s id. No appearance of defendant. To be paid ' forthwith, or five days' imprisonment. K. Holland v E. Piekersgill. Judgment summons for £2 5s 6d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. No appearance of defendant. To he paid forthwith, or two days in gaol. D. K. Lewers vjJno Burke. -Claim for j£3 2s 9d. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Defend* ant to pay it at £1 per month. Fraser Bros v Hon.— Claim for/£fO on * dishonored promissory note. Mr Prior for plaintiff. Defendant was examined ia Maori by his Worship. A long speech ia Maori wae also givea by a Native woman. Plaintiff fcare evidence at to the claim, and judgment was given by consent for the amount with costs and counsel's fee. • D. R Lewers r Jno Smith.— Claim for £5 9i lOd for goods supplied aad delivered. Mr Prior for plaintiff, and lfr Hawkins Cor defendant. Thedefeacewas that the goods had aot beea supplied to defendant, but to another person. . The claim appeared to have arisen out of an arrangement made with defendant while in the employ of Messrs Munro and Bead, and Munro and Temple, formerly ' aawmillers at Cheltenham. D. Jl. Lewers gave evidence as to the nature of the arrangement made, which -did aot hold the employers named responaibiefor defendant's liabilities in the present ease. ■ CroH*enmined: Told defendant he "believed be: would- be quite safe ia work- i ing for Munro, and as proof of his faith - iii the eoßcera wae supplying the mill with goods; had not charged Munro with present claim, nor asked him for pay■seat. '.'-.' , Defendant deposed at to going to work for Munro on plaintiff'! advice ; an arrangement was made for Manro to pay defendant's store bill at plaintiff's. Crosa-eiamined : The goods had been «ent in the name of Munro, and not to defendant; the amounts of the bills were stopped out of his wages ; went to work ai the _n»Ug__tioa of Mr Lewers, who said ' be would see that he was paid. At thia juncture Donald Munro, who had been subpoenaed was called but did aot appear, whereupon, Mr Hawkins asked for an adjournment of the case so as to receive his evidence. Mr Prior offered ao objection. •The case was accordingly adjourned liil next court day, with the usual ec__-_i-tions »• to cost*. -. ' Eybus tE. T. Davies, of W.\t.s anui.— Chum £5 Us 2d.— Mr Pri .r io plaintiff. No appearance of defendant, whoso evidence, taken in Wanganui, was read. C. Seigel,' formerly butcher at Hal- - combe, deposed that defendant was at - one time in the employ of Mr Bell, at Halcombe;'witness bad a claim on defendant, which he assigned to Mr Bell, from whom plaiu tiff had purchased the account. Case adjourned till next sitting to hear Mr Bell's evidence. Kiwitea Boad Board v the Wanganui Harbor and Kiver Conservators Board. — Claim for '£6s Bs«dfoc rates alleged to be due for the Harbor Board's: Block in the Kiwitea Boad Board district. Mr Hankins for plaintiffs and Mr Fitzherbert tor defendants. . This case was called on, but •, counsel on both sides agreed to have it argued in the Supreme Court. It was accordingly hot proceeded "' The .Cour^ then adjourned till next sitting. aa ' • . t