MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXX, Issue 401, 23 June 1908, Page 3

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

The monthly sitting of the above Court was held before A. D. Thompson Ksq. S.M. yesterday. Two young men were charged with having used obscene language in Main Street on June. 19. They both pleaded guilty but stated that the language was used while under the influence of liquor. The magistrate said he would take into consideration that it was late at night when the language was used and there were very lew people about. Accused would be lined 40s each and costs 7s. A prohibition order was also taken on 1 , against one of the offenders. Judgment was given for plaintiffs in the following undefended cases Wycherley and Sons (W. K. Barnard) v. J. Burr, £1 17s, costs 10s ; Smaleand Hay (W. E. Barnard) v F. Coyle, £1 2s, costs 8s; FJaxraillers Employees Union (Mr Reade) v. C. Blackburn £1 13s, costs 10s ; R. N. Speirs i(Mr Reade) v. Young and Pettley, 12s 6d, costs £1 7s, solicitor’s lee £1 4s 6d ; D.O.A. in the estate of W. Wright (Mr Barnard) v. A. Chamberlain, 15s, costs ss; same v. J. Weller, 19s, easts 5s ; same v. R. Walden, £t 6s, co-ts 10s; Walchorn, Stiles and Co. (Mr Moore) v. J. A. Smith, £7 7s gd, costs Bs, solicitor’s fee tos 6d ; Gardner and Whibley v. C. Jesson, ss, costs only solicitor’s fee 5s ; same v. A. H. Lee, £lO iSs 6d, costs 15s, solicitor’s fee 15s 6d ; N.Z. Retailers’ Protection Association v. C. Topeck, 15s nd, costs 1 is; M. H. Walker v. J. Groom, £6 14s 3d, costs 17s. In the judgment summons E. Hussey v. A. H. Arbon, claim £2 16s 3d, no order was made. C. L. Maudl (Mr Barnard) v. W. G. and Mrs Tozer, claim £4 4s. After hearing evidence judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs ss, and solicitor’s fee 5s less 27s already paid, against W. G. Tozer only. The D.0.A., in the estate of W. Wright, sought to recover the sura of 12s 6d from James Wilson, for a pair of boots supplied to defendant’s wife.

W- Wright in evidence, said that the boots were supplied to Mrs Wilson. She did not say to whom they were to be charged, and witness had followed the usual practice, and entered them to the husband, to whom he had rendered several accounts. Defendant did not dispute the accounts until witness saw him in the street and asked for payment. P. H. Rae-Howard acting for the D.0.A., also gave evidence as to having made two applications to defendant for payment, from whom he received no reply. Jas Wilson, defendant, said he did not know anything about the account until Wright asked him for payment one day in the street. At that time, Wright did not say that his wife got the boots. The Magistrate, in entering up judgment, said he was satisfied from .the evidence that Mrs Wilson had got the boots, and judgment would be given accordingljp for the amount claimed, 12 61,. with costs Ss.

M. Perreau (Mr Barnard) sued the Wellington and Wanganui S-P. Co., Ltd;, and F. Dewhurst (Mr Reade), for £1 14s gd for bread supplied to the s.s. Putiki, during November and December, 1906. Plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that the bread was ordered by the cook, and sent down to the vessel. All previous accounts had been paid by the Company. The statements were rendered each month, addressed to the s.s. Putiki, and had never been disputed. L. W. Wilson, storekeeper, said that he had supplied the Putiki with goods during November and December, 1906. The goods were ordered by the cook, and the accounts were rendered to Messrs Johnston and Co., Wellington, the Company’s agent, who had paid them after a little trouble.

M. H. Walker also gave evidence. He said that he had dealings with the Company’s boats. The accounts were always rendered to Messrs Johnston and Co., who had paid them after a personal interview with them. Mr Reade, for defendants, contended that at time the debt was contracted, the cook was providore of the vessel, and he alone was liable.

The Magistrate said he would consider the matter, and give his decision next Court day. J. W. Anderson (Mr Moore), sought to recover the sum ot £1 is from F. Hedgeman, for rent of a house belonging to plaintiff’s wife, for whom he was acting as agent. Plaintiff said that Pledgeman came to the house, and asked him if it was to let, and he replied that it would be in a few days, when he had finished the repairs he was doing. Defendant said he would.like to rent it, ; as he was to be married in about six weeks time. Witness told him the rent would be 10s 6d per week, and as he would not be using the house for six weeks he would allow him a little discount during that time. Hedgeman came round again when the repairs had been completed and was quite satisfied. Gave him the key of the back door, and also the key of the front gate. Returned to Foxton the following day, thinking everything was alright. About 10 or 12 days later, heard that defendant had taken another house. Hedgeman returned the keys a fortnight after witness gave them to him. F. Hedgeman, defendant, said he was in need of a house, and a friend told him of the one in question and also introduced him to Anderson. Went round and had a look at the house. Anderson gave particulars as to rent, etc., and also said that Mr Harris, of Harris and Sussex, was

the agent and to make all arrangements with h.m. Subsequently saw Mr Harris and told him that he was not going to take Anderson’s house as he had got one which suited better. Only looked at Anderson’s house once and did not tell him that he would take it, nor did he receive any keys from him.

The Magistrate said that as the house belonged to Mrs Anderson she should have brought the action Plaintiff would lie nonsuited with 15s costs. Mrs Matene Kareua was charged on April c;th, at Foxtou, she did, in consideration of payment or reward, retain in her charge a child named Huff, 3)6 months old, for a period longer than seven consecutive days, without having such home licensed under the Infants Life Prelection Act of 1907. Constable Woods conducted the case on behalf of the police, and Mr Reade appeared for the defendant.

Constable Woods said ; On April 12th he went to see defendant about the child Hull, and she said that it was in her care Irom March 10th to April gth. Asked her it the parents gave her any money in consideration of the support of the child. She said “no ” that she only received £1 to buy clothes with. Asked her if she took the the child to a doctor when it was ill, and she said “ yes,’, and that the doctor ordered the child back to its mother. The child was taken away by the mother’s aunt, and it died the day after. To Mr Reade ;—Am positive that defendant said she only received £1 to buy clothing. Defendant said she did not know anything about the Act. It was after the child died that witness went to see defendant. There was no cohrplaint as to defendant’s treatment of the child. Was of opinion that the mother was pleased to get rid of the child.

Maude Huff, mother of the child, stated that on March loth she took the child to her aunt, Mrs Rout, with whom she was living at the time. The child was then about 2)6 months’ old. Defendant approached her about the child and said she would like one to look after. There was no' arrangement made about payment. Witness never paid her a penny, nor was she paid by anyone else. The child had plenty of clothing at the time. Defendant had the child for about live weeks. She took the child until such time as witness could get a place where she could keep it. At the time witness was glad to get rid of the child as it was hard to get employment if witness had the child with her.

In reply to! Mr Reade, witness said that the child had been well looked after by the defendant, and it was through no fault of her’s that the child died.

Matene Karena, defendant, said that on the 7th March she met Mrs Rout in the street and she asked witness if she wanted a child to look after, as her neicc had one, and she wanted someone to look after it. Witness replied that she would have to see her husband first. Three days later she went to see the child. The mother was not at home when she arrived, but she came in later on. As soon as she came in she gave witness the child. The mother said she was unable to keep it as she was not strong enough to provide for it. Witness understood that she was to adopt the child and keep it as her own. She was sorry for the child, hence her reason for taking it. There was a promise ot £1 to buy clothing, but she did not get the money then, nor had she received it since. Witness said she received very little clothing when she got the child. Since she had had the child, she had paid 35s for clothing and she had also paid for medicine for it. When the mother handed the child over to her she asked witness to take it to her (witness’) home in Bulls, as she did no want to see it again. When the child became ill, she took it to a chemist, who advised her to see a doctor, which she did, and he told her to take the child to its mother, and it was there where it died. In answer to the Magistrate, witness said that it was the mother’s aunt who promised the money. This happened a day or two after she took the child. The police said that they did not wish to press for a heavy penalty, but desired to impress upon the defendant and others that the Infant Life Protection Act must not be set at defiance. This case was not singular, as the police had evidence of four similar cases where illegitimate children had been banded.over to the care of the natives. Unfortunates found the method very convenient for transferring their responsibilities on to others shoulders in contravention to the act.

In giving judgment the Magistrate said that seeing the native had received no monetary consideration except the promise of /i he would convict and impose a line of xos and costs which he thought the mother of the child should pay. There was nothing to prevent anyone adopting a child provided the legal course was pursued, but it was illegal for any person who had not a license to take the custody of infants. Annie Andrew (Mr Barnard) v. Robert Andrew. Five fresh complaints by Annie Andrew, on behalf of herself and four children, under “The Destitute Persons Act, 1894,” were submitted to the S.M., yesterday, in substitution for five previous summonses for maintainance which' had lapsed. The whereabouts of the defendant not being known, his worship issued a warrant for the man’s arrest, the complaints to be gone into as soon as Andrew’s attendance could be secured.