MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 3, Issue 201, 5 June 1914, Page 3

MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Pukekohe—Thursday. (Before Mr F. V. Frazer, S.M.)

JUDGMENT BY DEFAULT.

Judgment was given by default in the case W. Mills v. W. Jamieson, £5 12s 6d, costs £1 4s 6d. CASES AGAIN ADJOURNED. The cases of J. M. Gardner v. O'Connor and Talbot, and J. Wolstenholme against the same defendants were adjourned on the application of the plaintiff's counsel (Mr Mason) until the 18th inst. Tne case E. Ctum v. the same defendants was struck out. SUED THE WRONG PARTY.

J. A. Kitchie (Mr Endean) sued L. C A. Potter (Mr Hopkins) for £2l 14s 4d. Mr Endean said the summons bad been issued by the plaintiff and as proceedings should have been taken against the contractor and not defendant he applied for a con-suit. Plaintiff wdb accordingly nonsuited with costs £2 2s. A CASE REHEARD. At the last sitting of the Court before J.'sP., J. Fausett eued J. Keane for £6 for seed potatoes and chaff supplied, when the plaintiff was non-suited. The case came before the Magistrate on Thursday, Mr S. R. Mason appearing for the plaintiff and Mr C. Mahony for defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the goods were supplied to defendant and one Bamptoo who was in partnership with him. The defendant contended that the arrangement between Bampton and himself was that the former should provide the seed and chaff and defendant the land and manure.

After hearing the evidence the "™iatrate gave judgment for plaintiff" for amount claimed, with £2 6s costs. JUDGMENT SUMMONS. W. Roulston (Mr Hopk.ms) v. G. Corin (Mr Haddow), claim £3 B*. An offer to pay 5a per month was accepted, and an order was made for payment forthwith of £4 30 6d, warrant to be suspended provided 5s per month be paid in reduction the first payment to be made on July Ist. MAINTENANCE CASE.

An unfortunate family diferenee was ventilated when Ellen Hartneady (Mr Haddow) made an application for a separation order and maintenance from her husband, Michael Hartneady (Mr C. Mahony), and the custody of the children. The relations of the parties as disclosed by evidence did not appear to have been happy. Defendant, it was said, had "sulked," refusing to speak to complainant sometimes for as long as a month at a time, used bad language to her, frequently came home drunk, did not properly provide for her maintenance and had used violent threats to her. The defendant denied cruelty, failure to properly maintain the complainant, and drunkenness. The complainant through several acts had caused him annoyance and been responsible for part of the trouble. After hearing the evidence called by both parties the Magistrate granted a separation and made an order for maintenance of 26s a week, the complainant to have custody of the children.