Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Thursday, March 28. (Before J. C. Crawford, Esq., E.M.) BY-LAW CASE.

Thomas Eitson, engineer, was summoned, on remand, charged with contravening the city by-laws, by allowing certain premises, his property, which are occupied by Mr. Bragge, plumber, to encroach on the footpath in \Villis-street.

Mr. Travers, city solicitor, appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Bell defended. Mr. Bell raised several preliminary objections to the suit. He argued that the case' should be dismissed on the grounds that the by-laws of the City Council had not been proved to be duly made j further, that the Municipal Corporations. Act, 1867, provided that legal proceedings must be taken within two years of the passing of the Act. fie cited authorities in support of his contentions. Mr. Travers in reply submitted that by the Municipal Corporations Acts of 1872 and 1876 the by-laws had been sufficiently proved. Defendant had received 28 days’ notice to remove the buildings, but had neglected to do so, and accordingly he was liable to a penalty of £lO for each day the nuisance continued after the notice was served. It mattered not at what time the notice was given. Mr. Crawford was satfsfied as to the by-laws having been proved, but held that there was no offence until the expiry of 28 days after notice had been given. Mr. Bitson was then recalled, and deposed that although at one time he was owner of the property it now belonged to his wife, having been conveyed to her. In answer to Mr. Travers, witness said it •was a long time ago since the property was so conveyed, but whether he had mortgaged it subsequently or not was his own business. He afterwards admitted that he had mortgaged the property after the alleged conveyance to his wife/; that he had leased it and received and that the deed of conveyance was never registered. Mr. Bell said that afterthe evidence which had been adduced he would merely ask the Court to inflict a nominal penalty, and state a case for the Supreme Court on the points which he had raised. Mr. Crawford said he was willing to state a case, and as he thought a nominal fine would m eet the requirements of the Council he wo uld order defendant to pay 20s. DOKESTIO JARS. Simon Moar was summoned by his wife, Cecilia Moar, to show cause why he should not contribute towards her maintenance, and she also applied for a married woman’s property protection order. Prosecutrix said she had been married to defendant for eighteen years, but out of that time he had not lived with her six years. He frequently left her, and she had been forced to tramp about the country with the baby in her arms. She had also been refused situations on account of her husband’s bad character. The father of prosecutrix was next called, and treated the Court to a history of the parties to the suit since their marriage. They lived at a Maori settlement near the Hutt, and defendant, getting into trouble with the Maoris, decamped from the district, leaving his “ newly-married pregnant wife" behind among the Maoris. He went to Picton, whither she followed, and she afterwards returned to her parents in a destitute condition. They maintained her for a time, and afterwards paid her passage to Dunedin. She again joined her husband on the West Coast, but they both came back in a penniless state. Cross-examined : She was in the habit of indulging freely, but he thought that was excusable at Christmas time, when anyone might be excused taking a drop too much. Defendant said his wife was a fearful woman to live with, she cohabited with the Maoris, went on the spree, and was simply intolerable. Defendant was ordered to pay his wife las a week for three months. CIVIL CASES. Shaw and Son v. W. Hughey.—Claim of £7 2s. Judgment for the amount, with costs. Burrows v. Mundy.—Claim of £l3 2s. lOd. Judgment for the amount, with costs.

Dowling v. Bradley.—Claim o£ £2 10s. Judgment for the amount, with coate. Nopera te Herekau v. Mclntosh.—This was an action to recover £IOO, the value of some land exchanged for a horse. Mr. Gordon Allan appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Brandon, jun., for the defendant. From the evidence, it appeared that plaintiff was the owner of a racehorse named Puihinihi, which he exchanged with defendant for a piece of land at Marton, the native understanding the value of the laud to be £IOO, whilst the value * was only £2O. Nopera paid £65 for the horse, and demanded it back from Mclntosh, who immediately locked the horse up, and afterwards despatched it South. After evidence had been taken, Mr. Crawford ordered defendant to give up the horse to plaintiff in ten days, or pay £2O.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM18780329.2.22

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5307, 29 March 1878, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
806

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5307, 29 March 1878, Page 5

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT. New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 5307, 29 March 1878, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert