RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. AHAURA.

Grey River Argus, Volume XII, Issue 1146, 1 April 1872, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT. AHAURA.

Thursday, March 28. (Before C. 'Whitefoord, Esq., R.M.)

Joseph Gardiner was summoned l for neglecting to support his wife arid-twO children resident at. Half-Ounce. -_ The woman said that her husband assaulted her on several occasions and, turned her out of the house, she was ■; frightened to go back to live with him, and she had not any means of supporting her children or herself separately. Her husband was earning from Ll2 to -Lls per week. Senior. Constable Dprris proved, thatihe complainant came, to him at the Police Station at Half-Ounce, and that she had marks of serious violence upon her. 'The defendant said all the^ trouble .was caused by his wife's misconduct. She 1 had a good home to come to, and as she refused' to stay in her own house he' objected to provide a, separate maintenance .for , her. She was continually threatening 'to go to her daughter, who resided at Greymouth, and she did go. upon one 'occasion. Had it been in the neighborhood of Stafford Town, where they formerly,; resided, and where her character was known, his wife would not dare {to bring the <mac into Court and there expose both of them. R. W. Russell, a storekeeper at HalfOunce, said the defendant was working a share for him in. a mining claim at thai place. The .witness gave the defendant an excellent character as a hard-working industrious man, and corroborated Jihe. statements made, by Gardiner as to his wife's misconduct/ Tie. Magistrate advised the parties- to arrange the inattecbe^ tween themselves, adjourned the caselfor a fortnight. In the. meantime inquiries would be made, and if the complainant's statements were found to be correction order would be made by the Court. • J

-...-,. , . ; .c^q&CA5E5. ;;;. ';....■■".;....,,, 1, Dennis Doyle y. Donald M'Lennon. — This was'a claim on an 10 U for L 4 16s and for the . amount of a ■ dishonored order for L 2. The evidence in this" oass was of an extraordinary character, H&t the last. sitting : of the Court the XQIT and order were produced, and the ; defendant distinctly denied that the signatures were his, or that he had ever signed an 1 0 U. The case was adjourned for the production of a witness named Skead, who resides at Reefton; and who >rote the bodies of the 10 U and the' orderi Skead was storekeeping ;for the- 'plaintiff ; ! atTopsey Creek when the documents were alleged to be signed by M'Lennon. Skead did npt. ... appear, . and ; the "defendant went into the box and again denied the signatures, and ..said/'finorepyeri that his name was 'f Donald," and the documents were signed < Daniel M'Lennon. A witness : named Thomas Maxwell was called to ;proye. transactions between the parties, and also to give evidence as an expert as to the defendant's handwriting. The IOU, the order, and'a piece'of paper bn whi'cK the defe^anTßaU signed his name^in.Courti inline absence of Maxwell, were placed before the witness, and he, was requested; to select the signature he thought genuine. He '$&...■ pressed doubts about the order and thelOtJ, but at once pronounced the signature made by M'Lennon in the presence of the Court to be a forgery. The further evidence' -of this witness was then dispensed with. The Magistrate said that, in the absence, of the witness Skead, the evidence did not satisfy -the ! Court- that the signatures to the\ documents were those of th^efSn* danK Neither was' the Court satisfied that all the transactions between, .the parties .were ; finally settled up. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff would be nonsuited, with jL3 3s costs. : Mr. Guiri-? ness for plaintiff; Mr Staite for defendant. ' ..■• : -■ : -' : - ■■;•■•': ■:■•-•.■■ : % ' ■■■"-.

R. W. Russell v. P. Grogan.--iA claim .of Llß lßs 7d, for goods supplied at HalfOunce. This was a re-hearing. When the case was previously before the Court, the defendant produced receipts for more than the amount sued for, and a verdict went in his favor with full costs. Are-hearing was granted for the production, of Iwrther Evidence, with respect to the entries in the plaintiff's books. Felix Stratford said he was a storekeeper for Wm. Lonargan (of whose estate the present plaintiff is assignee) at the time the g<iods wereisupplied. The witness- explained that the goods for which Grogaifp*oduc6d the teceipts were connected trith*H» separate

transaction to the debt now sued for. The books were produced and explained to the Court by the witness. An adjournment was granted to enable the defendant to appear. Mr Guinneu for plaintiff; Mr Staite for defendant. E. A. Drury v. E. Ashton, "and a man named John. — This was an action for LI 8, as damages for tho wrongful conversion and detention of a horse at Ahaura. The "man named John," and, with him Mr Guinness, appeared. There was no proof of the service of the summons on the defendant Ashton. The plaintiff did not appear, and the case was struck out, with 21s costs to go to the defendant "John." Verdicts for the plaintiffs with costs were given in Russell v. Johnson, Ll7 1b 7d ; Brown v. Clarke, L 10 0; Same v. Hawson, L6O 10s ; Doyle v. Nailor, LlO 4s ; and Russell v. Morris, 1A 4s. The Court was adjourned to April 11.