MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Hokitika Guardian, 10 May 1923, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

THURSDAY, -MAY 101'a. (Before Win Meldrum, Eoip, S.M.) J. Fox, Borough Inspector (Mr Park) v. W. White, a charge of allowing l horse to wander. Fined 20s and costs Same v. TV. Bariewman- 1 cow; lined 10s and costs 7s. Same v. Mrs Kortegast, 1 cow ; fined 4Os and costs 10s 6d. LICENSING ACT. An offender charged with being on Refused premises filter hours was ordered to pay costs 7s and (mother offender for breach of a prohibition order wrs lined 20s and costs 7s. MAINTENANCE.

Tr - AT. Cameron v. F. I*. Cameron maintenance order applied for. Order made for payment of £2 10s weekly and custody of children. Willetts v. Willetts for non-payment of order, was adjourned lor two weeks. DKBT ('ASK.

,T. King (Mr Elcoek) r. W. MeCon--11011, cl-nun £1 0s 2d. Judgment for plaintiff for amount, less 10s paid, 16s 2d, with costs iSs.

APPLICATION FOR RE-HEARING. O. Morris (Mr Murdoch), v. R- Y illetts (Mr Wells) for a rehearing ot cie-c heard at the previous ••itting on the grounds that he had new evidence to bring that would contradict the evidence of the pdaintiff of the previous case (Willetts) as to the used pi.vodure of Willetts taking w-.T in the countrv.

After argument his Worship agreed to hear the evidence of a. w tncss, and Mr Murdoch called: —-

Edward Thomas Stoop who deposed lie lived at Woodstock. Before Xmas he find some brick work to do. M itiiess was summoned to give evidence on the last court ease. Witness told W 'letts bis arrangements with him were foi 24s a day and no hoard or residence. There was no contract to provide heard or lodging. To Mr Wells—When Willetts was working at witness’ house, witness provided morning and afternoon ten, hut. witness did not provide breakfast or residence. After discussion by counsel ill which tiro question of the value of a court judgment in favor of Willetts was raised, owing to it not being claimed against the separate estate of defendant Mrs Morris (a married woman), his Worship sir'd that though an application had been made lor a distress warrant in the ease of M illetts v • .Moris, it would not he issued as the judgment was of no value, being null and void, as it was not stated in the plaint note that the claim was against the separate estate cl the defendant. a married woman. He suggested that counsel agree to take the two cases together and to stare tie novo. After further discussion both counsel agreed to this course, and his Worship granted the application for a rehearing.