S.M. COURT.

Otaki Mail, Volume XXVIII, 5 March 1920, Page 2

S.M. COURT.

OTAKI—THIS DAY. (Before J. L. Stout, Esq. S.H.) ' Prohibition Order. Police v. Win, Atkinson, breach of prohibition order. Further adjournment granted, defendant being misaDig. Stray Stock.

B. C. Dick (Hull County. Council ranger) v. C. Dowsctt, charge of allowing stock to wander. The ranger stated he seized the cattle and banded th«m over to Mr Dowseit. —No appcaranet of defendant, who was fined 10s and costs.

Same v. F.R.lloltorn,similar cbnrgjj. Defendant wrote pkading guilty.— Fined 10s, costs 12s.

Same v. F. Grubb, similar charge. No appearance of defendant, who wrote, that: be was in hospital, and asked for adjournment.—Adjourned till May sitting.

Theft of Onions. Police v. Harnett Waaka, charge of theft of onions value 2s, tho property, of Vee Hop. Defendant pleaded guilty and elected summary trial.

The constable stated the Chinamoa bad missed vegetables repeatedly, and hi' had watched their gardeus night utter night. Thieving was prevalent, and ho asked that it be put down. Accused seemed to be doing no work, and as long as he continued to fail to do something thefts, no doubt, would continue.

The S.M. said be could inflict a fine of C2O or six months' imprisonment, but in this case he would only inipone a fine of £2. If other cases of a similar nature were brought forward it would probably mean imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Paraparaumu Collision Case. In the case Albert John Uobinson v. J. Divycr, claim £'j3 for damages arising oat of collision, heard at last court M'--ion, the B.M. said he had viewed the locality and found the cart bad pulled u foot to 18in on the grass, and that the collision would not have «• curred had the car pulled off properly. The collision was, he considered, duo to the driver of the car, but the damages claimed were excessive. He would allow plaintiff £3l We, with costs £3 LGs. Claim for Maintenance. Mary Gzcathead (Mr Adams) sued Ernest Greathcad {Mr Cooper) for maintenance. „ 'Plaintiff, in evidence, stated that her husband had contributed nothing towards her maintenance for .dx months, with the exception of a little bread and tucat in January an/1 February. Consequently she had to take in (tewing to keep herself and her three children. .She had been married 21 yean; and tad seven children. They had lived happily together until recently. Bne alleged misconduct on her hsaband'e part. She and her husband had not spoken for months, though living in the'same house, and had not lived as man and wife.

Defendant declared that head had, some eighteen months ago, refused to be a wife to bitn, giving bo reason. He had provided her toosvy regularly, averaging about £2 10s per wee!:, and she had never complained thai she was not properly maintained. He waf willing U» take her back as a wife—she had never any reason to leave him.

The S.M. considered it was a ease In which a settlement between the parties »hould be arranged. Defendant bad bis obligation.*, and should do something for his wife. It was an unfortunate ease, in which the Court had no jurisdiction. Jf defendant had been guilty of miseOT'iact, as alleged, his wif» could sac for a divorce. He adjourned the ease for a month to allow the parti* s to eoaie to a aetilement. Civil Cases. -T. C. W&teborn {Mr Harper) v. Hani Bopaia, elairn £L—Judgment by default, aorta 10s. Same (Mr Harper) v. Akihaia Bewi, claim £ll lit 3d.—.lodgment by default, costs 25* <*f. Frank rjwensaion (Mr Stavefcy) v, Sid Sweomog aad Janus and David liifriis. claim £l3 2*.— by dcfswt, costs 54».

Cafio. Willidrawß. ■ The eacc Joisasa*-Power r. Tiomss Sweasson, a charge of dejKaedinj us.«r«.';ive trt-;pa! ■ rafis cr i"«3t*g«s for a tiw impjwusded, was wjtadrawr, Mr Earpet ictijaaatiag that a settlenant bad; been arrived at.