RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XVI, Issue 290, 6 December 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

[Before O. Curtis, Esq., It. M.] The following judgments were delivered this morning .— Appeal against the election of a member of the Wain.ea Coun-y Ouncil This ig an tnquiry into the allegations crmained in c. r.ett'on fi ed in the R(-itftnt Msgistratt 'a Ccurt pursuant to (he provisions of • The Eegulation of Local Elections Act 187G," all. gi.g thut a certain ballot puper was wronjtlv rejfc'ed by tba Kpinmin. Officer, and pr-jiug '.hat the flection of Wi ham Uenrj Phillips an a member for the Ri ing of Wangap ka may be declared ?oid Counse for the siuiog member object tbat the petition should have been filed at Brightwater as the nearest Resident Magistrate's

(Continued from Second Page, Bhcnld have been accepted us a vote for j Thompson. ! As an Bcditionof . ne vote to those recorded for Thompson wo Id have made the numbers of the two candidates squal aid left the "■!« tieD lo lhe caßl ine vote of the Returning Officer, I declare the whole election to be Toid, Burn and -wife v. Smith. This is an action brought by a lodging bouse keeper to recover £12 for the board and lodging of the defendant's wife. It appears from the evidence that Mrs Smith left her house ie Havelock without the consent and against the wish of her husband, and after living a short time with her married sister in Nelson took lodgings in the house of the plaintiffs. It was proved by the witness Levien, that acting on behalf of the defendant, he had given notice to Burn, the plaintiff, that Smith would not be responsible for any debts his wife might contract, as he wished her to return home, but the witness was unable to specify the date of such notice. It seems, however, to he clearly established iv law, that a wife leaving her home without sufficient cause and against the wish of her husband has no power to pledge the husband's credit, and that no notice, either general or to a particular creditor, is needed to relieve him from responsibility for any debts she may contract. An attempt was made on the part of the plaintiffs to show that Mrs Smith was justified in leaving her home by fear of personal violence from her husband, but I am of opinion that no reasonable ground for such fear w.13 proved in evidence. I give judgment for the defendant with costs. Harris v. L?vcstam. la this case the plaintiff, a mechanical engineer, sues the Secretary of the Court Robin Hood of the Ancient Order of Fores tera for £6 10s, the amount of a certain weekly allowance alleged to be due to him as a member of the Society during sickness. On the 28th of May last the plaintiff met with a serious accident to his left band which necessitated amputation of the middle fioger. Oa application he was placed on the funds of the Society from the date of the accident to the 10th September, when, upon the report of the medical officer of the Society, payment was discontinued. In the meantime, in the month of August, plaintiff got married. The question in this case is whether on tee 10th September plaintiff was sufficiently relieved from the effects of the injury he had sustained to resume hi 3 occupation or employment. The medical evidence does not vary materially, and is to the effect that plaintiff was unable to pursue the occupation of. a mtc'.anical engineer or any occupation requiring the full use of both hands, but that he was able to do any light work. It was proved that at the lime of the accident, and for four or five months previously plain! iff » 8 occupation was that of a dealer in dairy and agricultural produce and of commission sgent for the sale of certain nonalcoholic drinks. I interpret the word " employment " ie the rules of the Srciety to mean not necessarily the occupation which the recipi in from the funds may considtr to be his profession, but 'he occup-.tion in which he was engaged at the time of the accident or attack of illness which entitled him to come upon the sick fund. It was proved to my satisfaction that the plaintiff was, on the 10th S. pt^mber, capable of resuming he occupation in which he was engaged at the time of the accident, and that the Socieiy waa justified in refusing further relief from the eick fuDd. I therefore find for the defendant with costs £4 33. [B fore L Broad E?q., R.M ] Lydia Darhim v. J hn Haldane.- In thi« case plaintiff eu-d for the maintenance of her child, alleging that the defendant was the father. Mr Bunny ajp°ared for the plaintiff, and Mr Fell for the defendant. The Bench not being =atisfi-d as to the paternity dismissed the case, saying that while is wa3 a serious matter for the girl to have to support the child, it was al?o a serious matter to make a man pay for other people's cMldren. Mrs "Wett, the mother of the girl, on hearing the result of the case, entered the Court in a very excited state, and deprsi ing the child and a feeding bo> tie on the floor, addr-fwd the Clerk of the Court as follows:— • There now, Mr Bradley, I leave the child to the care of all of ye." The little waif was hasti'y picked up by the mother, who left the Court hugging it fondly to her breast.