Feilding R.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XIV, Issue 48, 8 October 1892, Page 2

Feilding R.M. Court

Friday, 7th October. (Before Mr Brabant, R.M.) M. H. Higgin vR. Roake ; claim L 2 Is 6d. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Mr Day proved the debt. Judgment for the plaintiff by default for the amount claimed with [ costs 13s. W. A. Sandilands v Hora te Rango ; claim L 6 6s 4d. Mr Prior for the plain--1 tiff. Judgment for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs 31s, solicitor's fee 21s. \V. Bellve v Ruera te Nnku ; claim L 7 128 6d. Mr Sandilands for the plaintifi. Jndggment for the amount claimed with costs 14s, and solicitor's fee 21s. James Wilson v James Brophy ; claim 30s. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed with costs 6s. T. G. Osborne v Ruera te Nuku ; claim Ll2 5s 6d. Mr Prior for the plaintiff. Judgment for the amount claimed, with costs 20s, and solicitors' fee 21s. Augusta Palinski applied for a protection and prohibition order against her husband Hugh Palenski, and also asked for the custody of her two children aged respectively 12 and 5 years of age, and for an allowance for the support of the younger child. Mr Cooke appeared for the informant, and Mr Sandilands for the defendant. The complainant deposed that her husband had frequently ill used her and beaten her when in drink. The last time was on the 18th ultimo, since which date he has not been living with the complainant. Complainant owns property consisting of one acre and a house worth about L2O, but was not aware there are 20 acres of land in Halcombe standing in her own name, Mrs Clare gave evidence as to the nature of the assault deposed to by the complainant, and observed discolorations on her face on the 18th of September. Witness has never noticed Palenski in drink, but his actions are very often those of a drunken man. Mr Purkiss was called for the defence, and deposed that Palenski was not an habitually drunken man, though he had seen the defendant the worse for drink occasionally. Witness never saw the defendant in drink on the 18th ultimo, although he met him two or three times during that day. Witness observed a bruise under the complainant's eye on the date in question. The Bench was satisfied that the complainant was entitled to an order on the evidence before the Court. The fact that council for the defence did not object to an order being made, gave weight to the complainant's application. The protection order was granted, on the terms of the application, the complainant to have the custody of the two children, and to be allowed 7s 6d a week towards the support of the younger child. The question of the prohibition order to stand over till next court day. The Court then adjourned.