RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume IX, Issue 108, 7 May 1874, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before L Broad, Esq., R.M ] Saturday/, May 2. Manson wyManson; Brothers.. This was an action brought by Magnus Manson, senior, of Takaka, to recover from his three sons, the defendants, 8 cwt of flour, some cattle, andia large quantity of household furni- , ' ture, clothes, and other gocda valued at £80, and £20 damages for their detention since November 13, 1871. Tho plaintiff conducted his own case. Mr Fell appeared for tho defendants. From the plaintiffs evidence it appeared tbat during hia absence from home his wife and sods left the house taking with them all the younger children and the goods claimed by the plaintiff, leaving his house absolutely stripped of everything it contained, and migrated to the house of a neighbor some two miles off, whither he had followed them and had seen tho whole of the goods and his wife and family with tbe defendants. He had then obtained a search warrant from'Dr Turnell, under which the house had been entered nnd a smalt part only of the goods recovered^ but the rest he had never succeeded in get'iog back. He accused tbe defendants' solicitor of aiding and abetting bis wife in keeping his goods and his children away from him, and admitted that he had claimed £100 damages against bim for so doing, and also that he had demanded some £160 damages from Constable Taylor for having imperfectly executed tbe search warrant. For the defence Mr Thomas Manson, one of the defendants, proved that the plaintiff had for years been in the habit of brutally treating his wife and younger children, and that at last his conduct becoming perfectly intolerable, they had taken the ppportunity of their father's temporary absence from home to leave him in a body; they had taken with them oce cwt. of flour, and a very few of the articles claimedj and these really belonged to the defendants and not to the plaintiff. That the plaintiff had afterwards under a search warrant recovered the whole of the goods taken except the flour, and had besides taken away a number of things bought by defendants after leaving the house, and that the plaintiff had never bad the other goods claimed at all. George Taylor constable of Takaka, proved that he had executed the foirch warrant, and had removed everything there was in defendants house. Mr Fell was about to call the two other defendants in corroboration, but His Worship snid that further evidence was quite unnecessary, and dismissed the case with £5 4a 6d costs.