Fcildmg S.M. Court

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 270, 20 May 1897, Page 2

Fcildmg S.M. Court

this day. ■ (Before Mr A. Greenfield, S.M.) E. Martin v. Jas. Wilson ; claim iSS. Blr Richmond for plaintiff Judgment for amount clnimid with costs ss. G. H. Say wull v. D. H. McKenzie ; claim £5 6*. Me Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with cost 15s aud solicitor's fee 15s (sd. G-- H. Saywell v. Wm. Baker ; claim £] las 7d. '" Mr t-'audilaads for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs ss. Alex. Williamson v. IT. Behrendt; claim £37 18s 2d. Mr Sandilands for plaintiff. Judgmeu k for amount claimed with costs 29s aud solicitor's fee 81s. Alex. Williamson v. .7. Cowdrey; claim £2 13s 4d, Mr Saudilauds for plaintiff. Judgment for amount claimed with costs 15s and solicitor's fee ss. W. Hodreu v. H. Hughes; claim 6s 6d. Mr Richmond for plaintiff Judgment for amount ciaimed with costs 9s. .1 Miller v. Harry Hughes; a judgment summons claim £8 14s. Mr Readc for plaintiff. No appearance of debtor. Order made that the amount be paid before June 17th or iv default 14 days imprisonment in Wanganui gaol. Jos. Dmragh v.-X. Mulhns ; a judgment summons claim £4 0s 3d. Mr Sandilands for plaintifi. Order made that the amount be paid before July 20th or in default ten clays' imprisonment. Mary Hill implied for a prohibition order against htr husband, Wil'iam Hill, aud after hearing the evidence of the applicant and defendant the order was refused. The latter pleaded that as he was si general earner Ins business took him to hotels and sample room", and if an order, was granted against him he would lose his livelihood. His Worship suggested a separation order might bo tho bosb thing to net. Arthur Hickford was charged on tho information of Henry Hickford with having assaulted the latter on April 25th by throwing him down-; David Hickford wsk charged on the information of the same complainant with having assaulted the latter by shaking his fist in bin face. Both the alleged offeuces took place ou the same date aud at the same time." The accused were the souk of complainant. Mr lieade appeared in support of the information and accused coudueted their own case, pleading " not guilty." This was a case which arose out of a dispute over a pair of Lxnts owned by H, Hickford and which A. Hickfcrd had worn, The former alleged that be had offered to sell them to the latter who refused to pay for them, the defendant denying that complainant- had offered to sell tlism but had refused Complainant alleged that he had not used any language likely to provoke both the accused, who alleged that H. Hickford threatened to put I>. Hickford out and making a move in that direction the latter caught hold of him. Arthur Hickford having gone outside afler the dispute .started, s:iw complainant aud David Hickford wrestling together and fearing trouble caught hold o£ the first ho came to (H. Hickford) aud separated them ; 11. Hickford slippiug to the iloor gently ,* complainant deposed that A. Hickford had been asked to leave the house bnfc refused, this was denied by defendant who said he was willing to leave at once. ; David Hickford admitted catching hold of his father, but alleged the latter made a. move) towards him first after having used very abusive language ; complainant asked that the aeensod be bound over to keep the peace ; the complainant had not spoken to accused since t'>e dispute. Frank Hickford gave evidenco corroborating that given by the accused. His Worship held that as there had been abusive language on both sides and there was cross swearing he would dismiss both the cases. William Lowe was charged on the information of Jane Lowe his wife, with having failed to provide adequate means of support for her. G. C. Hill, Town Cleric, gave evidence of complainant having applied for charitable aid. Mrs Lowe also gave evidence of her destitu> tion and stated she had four children, the oldest being four years of age. An order was made that the defendant pay 20s per week towards the support of his wife. The accused, who was said to bo working at Farndon, was not present. John Prior v. J. R. Paul ; claim £3 16s. Mr Oathro for plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the charge was excessive and that when he went to Mr Prior he understood the work would be done for 21s in addition to the costs incurred by Mr Prior. Judgment was eiven for the amount claimed with costs 6s and solicitor's fee 26sThe Conrt 'then adjourned.