S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, Volume 26, 1 August 1919, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

| j OTAKI—THIS DAY. Before J. L. Stout, Esq., S.M. Civil Business. Judgment by default was given in the following cases: —AV. M. Quay-le v. Joe Ropata, claim £5 10s, costs £2 13s; C. H. Williams v. W. Guldens, jun., claim £B, costs 18s (id; R. J. Staveley v. Natalia tc Iliwi and liis wife, claim £ls 10s 4d, costs £4 19s. Iu the ease ■J. D. Howell v. Richard Maddock, claim £4 11s sd, it was stated the amount was paid, but Mr Harper (counsel for plaintiff) asked for a professional fee, which was granted. Judgment Summons. A. E. Minton v. Chappie Enoka, claim'£s ss. Order made for payment forthwith, in default 14 days. Bills and Moore v. Donis Tonihi, claim £5 5s 4d. £2 10s was paid into Court, and nil order was made for payment of the balance, in default 14 days. Baird and Co. (Mr Kirk) v. R. A. Small, claim £-1 Bs. No appearance of defendant. Order made for payment forthwith, in default 11 days. Application for Separation. . Fariccs Minnie Knocks (Mr Kirk) v. Mancel Knocks, failing to provide maintenance, being guilty of persistent cruelty and being an habitual inebriate, therefore an order for separation and guardianship was asked for. Complainant stated that her husband had contributed less than £lO for maintenance during the pa-1 year; she had paid rents and household expenditure, while her husband spent money on drink and ill-treatco her.—Order for separation made and guardianship of son granted, with costs (£2 £s) against defendant. Charge of Assault. Mary Ann Budge v. Welti Sylvanus Budge, charge of assault- Informant stated on the 25tli of last month her husband abused her, and later struck her and knocked her about very badly, hitting her with his closed hand. In answer to the constable informant stated she was struck four times, and that Budge knocked her down several times. Drink was the cause of the trouble. Slic had frequently gone to the police for protection, and after assaults she could hardly move about owing to injuries. She had stood the knocking about as long as possible,, but could stand it no longer. Constable Satliorlcy stated that he was called to informant’s house and saw the parties. He found her badly bruised on various parts of the body, including face, arms and legs.. Budge accused his wife of various things, which she denied. Budge was also guilty of bad language, and the house, therefore, was not fit for children to

live in. The S.M. said it was no good fining Budge or • imprisoning him, but ho. would convict and order him to come up for sentence any time within 12 months. Prohibition Order. Police v. Thomas Ayrc, application for a prohibition order. The constable staled the defendant for ihe past month had been drinking heavily, and was almost unable to work in consequence. —Order granted.

A Potato Case. Wesley Knight (Mr Kirk) v. George Bevan (Mr Staveley). This case was adjourned from Inst Court day in order to secure the evidendc of Lon Renwiek. Mr Staveley asked permission to also call evidence in rebuttal and to call a witness who had not yet been heard. The S.M. said if it was wished to have the case re-opened it should come before Mr Page, who had partly heard it. Lcn Renwiek then gave evidence as follows: —I entered the employ of Mr Knight on 25th July, 1918. and loft on August 3rd, 1918. During the time I was employed I loaded two lots of potatoes. belonging to Mr Knight, on .ur Bevan’s cart. To Mr Staveley: I did not know exactly where the loads were going to. I knew part of one load had to be distributed about Otaki. and was not wholly for Bevan. I cannot say where the other load had to go to. I am positive I helped to load two lots. If other witnesses said he had helped to load only one lot he would not say it was false. He could not give the date the first load was taken; he kept no account of work done. To Mr Kirk: I was not present after August 3rd at the delivery of potatoes to Bevan. Mr Kirk admitted that ten sacks, on the 2nd August, were not for the defendant. Arthur Bevan stated: I carted a load of potatoes about August 2nd for distribution in Otaki. This was the only load I carted about that time.. I did not make an entry of it in xny j diary, as Mr Knight paid me cash. The transaction had nothing to do with my father. To Mr Kirk: I have an old book to show that the date is correct (book produced). Mr Staveley asked permission of the Court to call a new witness, but Mr Kirk objected. As it was only a question of dates ! permission was "ranted. I August Rewi was then called, and 7 stated: My mother and I worked for j Bevan last September. Were there when Arthur Bevan was carting poiai toes and saw him arrive on several * occasions with a two-horse vehicle. Never did I see him with a one-horse - dray. I am sure ef my dates. I went | to work for Bevan just after I returned from Paekakariki on August 31. > To Mr Kftk: I was asked to give evidence in the case two or-three days ago. Bevan did cor ieljgise when the potatoes were caned, bat' asked if I knew about the potatoes. I •■cannot say if the loadr were brought in on consecutive date*.

Witness, re-called, slated: I stayed with Louis De Ycre in Packakarilci and' Isft about August 31st. He summoned f me for rent before I left,- and again ■’ after I left. I was working for MacJ kay when Satlierley served the summons. It was after this that I worked . lor Bevan. The Magistrate: The summons, you n j will be surprised to hear, was served j on October ISth. ;; j Mr Staveley arose to make an ex- ., planation, and was told by the S.M. to y j sit down. The S.M. added that he was a 1 conducting the case. ' e i S.M. (to defendant): The summons n was served on October 181 h. That will s do. I won’t ask you any more. Tho ; - ’ evidence will be sent to Mr Page. i