FEILDING COURT.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIII, Issue 9146, 15 May 1908, Page 5

FEILDING COURT.

(Before Mr. A. D. Thmpson, S.M.) Annie Foggarty was charged with assaulting her daughter, Maggie . Foggarty, 15 years of age. Mr Kelly appeared for the accused, who pleaded not guilty. Dr. Willis stated that he had been called in to Mr Jensen’s house to examine Maggie Foggarty. He found she had bruises on her shoulders, on her right and left thighs, and bruises on her left leg below the knee. Apparently the girl had been punished excessively and was in a nervous state. Some of the bruises had been inflicted with a stick or strap. The girl was well nourished and in good health. _ Annie E. Jensen stated that the first time she saw the girl was at 6.30 on the morning of May 2nd. She was then very dirty and in an excited state. The deft eye of the girl was slightly black. In consequence of wiiat the girl said she sent for the police. The only clothing the girl had on at the time was a chemise and a thin ragged cotton dress.

Maggie Foggarty deposed that her father was at Auckland. It was six years since she had lived with him. She went to Mrs Jensen’s house because her mother hit her for the least tiling. She would get her on the ground and threaten to pull her liver out, and beat her with a horse whip. Her mother was living with another man and had two children by him, and that was the reason her mother wished to prevent her,talking to people. She was frequently made to get out of bed to scrub the floor. She had good clothes but she was not allowed to wear them.

Marie Buckland, aged about 22, stated that she had been under the care of Mrs Foggarty since childhood and had always been well treated. The girl Maggie Foggarty had not been unduly punished. She was a troublesome girl and would not keep herself clean. Several articles of good clothing were shown in the Court which the witness recognised as belonging to the girl. Annie Foggarty, the mother, denied beatiug'The girl with anything but the strap, produced. The girl was well fed and was not overworked. She thought that the girl was more difficult to manage owing to her husband instilling in her mind that his family was so much better than her mother’s. The husband was in the lunatic asylum. Previously they iiad kept an hotel in the Thames. She had paid for the support of the husband in the asylum. His Worship said the conduct of the mother had been abominable. She was the mother of two young children, therefore he did not like to send her to prison, but certainly a fine would not be a sufficient punishment. He fined her £lO with costs. The girl will go into service. UNDEFENDED OASES. Oroua County Council v. G. Wiggins, claim 4s lid, costs 12s. H. Tolby v. W. Oorney, claim £2 ss, costs 255. W. Clarkson v. W.'Boyd, claim £B. Dan Fabling v. Y. P. Kereana, claim £4 13s, costs I6s 6d. E. G. Wells v. D. Laing, jun., claim £5, costs 20s 6d.

Adam and Sou v. T. A. Durran, claim £162 15s 6d, costs £7 10s. Rodgers v. John Tamplin, claim £5 5s 3d, costs 28s 6d. J. Wilson v. L. Batkin, claim £2, costs 10s.

J. L. White y. A. Kale, claim £ll 10s, costs £1 13s 6d. Rongotea Town Board v. J. Gleeson, claim £2 9s 4d, costs 10s. O. H. Paynter v. D. Laing, claim £1 19s lOd, costs 10s. A. and E. Pritchard v. J. Bowers, claim £3 14s 3d, costs 10s. A. Dunbar v. M. Christensen, claim £3 4s 6d, costs 10s, F. Woollams v. L. Withers, claim 13s, costs ss.

F. Woollams v. D. Laing, jun., claim 16s 9d. costs 10s. |F. Woollams 5s v. O. Hodges, sen., claim £1 5s 6d, costs 10s. Atkinson and Co. v. Carson, claim £1 0s 2d, costs 10s. JUDGMENT SUMMONS.

W. Clarkson v. A. Hannett, jun., claim £3 3s. Adjourned for three months, by which time His Worship said he expected the debt would be paid. Onglej and Kelly v. Alan Cleland, claim £6 8s 9d. To be paid forthwith, in default seven days imprisonment.

S. W. K. Evans v. Henry Pollard, claim £l3 8s 6d. No order was made.

DEFENDED OASES,

P. Ash v. R. Drummond, claim £1 10s for wages at the rate of 5s per day. Evidence was given for the defendant to prove tliat; the arrangement was for the plaintiff to ‘receive 5s per week. Judgment was given for the defendant with costs.

G. Wood v, R, Hammond, claim £l3 6s for grazing cows and calves. Mr Gillespie for the plaintiff and Mr Graham for the defendant. The plaintiff said he had sent accounts repeatedly and the defendant had not disputed them, but that was as far as he could get with him. The arrangement was for 6d per head. The defendant said the farm on which he resided and the stock belonged to his wife. The cattle had been placed on an open road adjoining the property of the plaintiff. The latter spoke to him about paying for grazing, whereupon he had replied that in that case an'hpplication would be made to the Manawatu County Council to have the road opened for traffic. Mt Wood had then replied that he could leave the cattle there without charge. They were there 45 weeks. Judgment was given for plaintiff with £3 6s costs. D. Fabling v. Charles L. Bath, claim £3 10s 9d for work one. A counter claim was lodged for £9 7s for iron rails, etc., supplied. The sum of 2s was paid into Court by plaintiff in respect to the counter claim. Mr Graham appeared for the plaintiff. Judgment was given for defendant with £2 5s costs, the plaintiff being allowed his claim and the 2s paid into Court, in the settlement.