MAGISTERIAL.

Globe, Volume XXIII, Issue 2299, 16 August 1881, Page 3

MAGISTERIAL.

CHRISTCHURCH. Tuesday, August 16. [Before J. B. Parker and R. Westenra, Esqrs., J.P.’s] Dbunkenness.—John Stewart for this offence was fined Bs. —Bor a first offence a man was fined ss, and ordered to pay la cab's hire. —Mr,Button again appeared for a first offender, who had failed to appear on Monday, and who had then been ordered to shew cause why the bail on which he had been liberated after arrest should not be estreated. Mr Button now said his client, sooner than appear in Court, was prepared to forfeit. After some discussion the bail, amounting to £2, was ordered to be estreated. LabcbnY. —William John Simmons pleaded guilty to stealing a pair of trousers, value 355, the property of Charles Knowsley.—The police said that prisoner, who had only just been liberated from gaol, and who had been frequently convicted for similar offences previously, had gone up-stairs in the Queen's Hotel and stolen the proprietor’s trousers, which afterwords he sold. Ho was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, with bard labor.

Alleged Assault.—John Nixon was brought up charged with having assaulted his wife on July 3rd.—Dr. Russell deposed that on August 13th, he was called in to attend Mrs Nixon, whom he found suffering from symptoms which might have been produced from the effects of blows on the back of the head, and an affection of the eye. She told the doctor that her injuries were the result of blows received. Her brain had been affected. She said she had been attending, since the beginning of July, as an out-patient of the

Hospital, but latterly she had got into such a low state that she had to send for the doctor to attend her at her own house.— At thi» stage, the prisoner protested that the statement of last witness was leading to a conclusion that was altogether against the fact; he asked to bo allowed to call his_ wife. Mrs Nixon being in Court, the Magistrate said it was rather strange that the information had not been laid by her, and ordered her into the witness-box.—Upon being sworn, she stated that her illness had not been caused by injuries indicted by her husband ; he had not assaulted her at all. —The case was dismissed. Sergeant Mason said that the information had been laid by Sergeant Pratt on the strength of statements made by Mrs Nixon, who had told him a story quite different to her tale when in the box.

Pbotection Obdbb, —Gilbert Butler was charged with being an habitual drunkard and with failing to support his wife and family. His wife, therefore, applied for an order protecting her own earnings. Mr Stringer appeared for the prosecution, and Mr Holmes for tho defence.—Mr Holmes objected to having two clauses ; two separate offences in the plaint. The charge of habitual drunkenness was then struck out.—Marian Butler dopoeed that she had been married twenty-two years. Shortly after her marriage she commenced business, which, until lately, ehe conducted alone. Since her marriage her husband had not supported her ; sho had done so principally out of her own earnings. Tho business had been sold lately. Her husband drew the rent of a shop that had been let. Witness had property of her own. That property had been paid for out of the proceeds of tho business. Her husband had made the property over to her. He kept the books of tho shop and carried parcels out —when he was able. Up till February 9th last her husband had lived with her. His conduct then became so strange that she applied to a solicitor, who advised her to put her husband in tho Lunatic Asylum. He had since returned and annoyed her. Sho sought relief in the present action. Cross-examined —The business was started with the money of defendant, which he borrowed from his mother. The orders for goods, <fcc., were made by defendant. The money proceeding from the business was banked in defendant’s name. This went on till the business was wound up. The settlement on her was made two or three years ago. They had not lived happily, but she tolerated him till then. Soon afterwards she declined to live with him ; that was because he was intoxicated at the time of the death of her little boy. She had a son now, aged eighteen, earning 25s weekly. She had a house in Armagh street producing a rental of £IOO per annum, a house for which she received 14i per week, another in which ehe resided, and she was the owner of half an acre of ground at Sumner, worth £3OO. Re-examined—Her husband started her with £4OO, borrowed monev, for which interest hod been paid yearly out of the proceeds of the business,—Mr Holmes here applied that the information be dismissed. Out of her own mouth it had been proved, that so far from failing to provide his wife with maintenance, tho defendant had stripped himself of almost everything ; had given her nearly all that he had made ever since he had been married to her. He had never deserted her, nor had ho been guilty of any other misconduct. The charge of habitual drunkenness had been withdrawn.—Samuel Stewart stated he had known the Butlers for many years. The husband was the man who transacted the financial part of the business. Cross-examined —The business was dressmaking, milllneiy, &3. He had never seen Mr Butler with a needle in his hand.— Parker deposed to knowing Mr Butler for twenty years. He was a good businessman.—Gilbert Butler,the defendant, deposed that ho had started the busineos which his wife conducted. He had put over £6OO into it. He kept the books, signed cheques, &c., and the business belonged to him. In 1878 he settled property on his wife worth £3CCO. He had retained tho interest in the lease of the shop, which had about throe and a-half years to run. and from which he had received about £95 per annum. Cross-examined—Had been to bis wife’s house about half-a-dozen times since February 9th, mostly at her own request. Is a carpenter by trade. He built the shop the business was carried on in, and two other houses. He worked at his trade after the business was started, and left off because the millinery required his whole attention. Had no other property but a possible interest in some land ot little value in Ashburton, and a few book debts.—The Bench said, no offence had been proved as required by tho Act, and the ease must be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly.—Mr Holmes applied for costs, and was allowed 2s for one witness only.