MAGISTERIAL.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2121, 9 January 1880, Page 2

MAGISTERIAL.

TIMARU—THIS DAY. [Before R. Beetliam, Esq., R.M.] DRUNK AND DISORDERLY. James Topp was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and also with resisting the police. The accused was lined 20s for the first offence, and sentenced to 48 hours’ imprisonment for resisting the police 1 . D. Emerson, an old offender, was then charged with being drunk. His AVorship read the accused a.pretty sharp lecture, and lined him 20s, ur 4<S hours’ imprisonment. ALLECED WIFE DESERTION. Joseph Cockroft was charged with deserting his wife and three children. Jessie Cockroft deposed that she was the wife of the accused. She had been married to him for nine years, and had throe children living—aged five years, three years, and six months respectively. Accused left home to attend the last Christchurch races. Shortly after his return witness found a a letter addressed to him. It was from some young woman. Witness thereupon said that she would never live with the accused again, and left the house to stay with some friends of hers. Was away for a fortnight. On her return found the house closed and her husband a wav. Evcrvthing was sold off.

In answer to tlie Magistrate as to whether ho laid anythin"’ to say the accused stated that he had attended the Christchurch races and met a barmaid there. On witness’ return home he had received a letter from the barmaid winch the ‘‘missus” had somehow got hold of. Hhe had then said that she would never live with him again and left the place. Witness had kept the house open for a fortnight, anil then linding his wife did not return he had sold oil the things and gone to AV el lington. lie was on his way backtoTimarn when he was arrested on this charge. The Magistrate suggested that the parties should talk the matter over again and sec if they could not settle it amicably between them. On their return into Court, after a few minutes’ absence, the wife said that they could not settle it, ami .asked for a separation. His AVorship remarked that this was not a Hi voice Court. The husband stated that he was willing to maintain and take charge of two of the children. The wife objected to the children going to the custody of the father. His AVorship then remarked that he thought it would be best to adopt the suggestion of Inspector Pender and adjourn the case until to-morrow (Saturday) morning’; and he would strongly advise the parties to settle the matter without his interference. Accused wmdd be liberated in the meantime on his own recognizance. WAMATE—YESTEBDAY. (Before 11. l)eetham, Esq., 11. M., and his AA’orship the Mayor). VAUItANTV^ .1. Mcfiown and his wife were charged with having no lawful or visible means of support. The male prisoner having been severely reprimanded for his undutiful behaviour, both were discharged. TitiiSfASS. For allowing horses and cattle to wander on the public roads, C. (!oodson, William Guilford, B. Fox, Simon Green, and W. Bernard were each lined bs and costs. TIIK COUNT!KS ACT. A case against Robert Hammond, for a breach of the Counties Ordinance, was adjourned for three weeks, defendant being in the hospital. civil casks. Judgment by default was given in the following cases : —AA r m. Davis v. D. McGill, £2(5 His lid; D. 11. Buckingham v. AA r . Crawford, To 11s Od ; 11. Hanke v. Trcgonning, £lB. Dr Hoadley v. E. Crow, claim £l3 15s Gel for medical attendance. Mr White appeared for plaintiff, and Mr Clement for defendant. Mr Clement asked for a nonsuit on the ground that Dr Hoadley had failed

to prove that ho was a duly qualified medical practitioner. A lengthy argument ensued, and the objection being ultimately upheld, the plaintiff was nonsuited, with costs, £3 6s Od.

B. Williams v. W. Lunara, claim, £l7 10s for ploughing. Mr White, on behalf of defendant, asked for an adjournment, on the ground that defendant was absent from Waimate and could not attend. The plaintiff stated he had had great difficulty in finding defendant, as he had been going under an assumed name. The adjournment was refused on these grounds, until after the plaintiff had been cross-examined as to an alleged partnership. The case was then adjourned for one week. Joseph Maherty, junr. r. James Boyce, claim £ll 4s 6d. Mr White for plaintiff, and Mr Clements for defendant. £G 10s had been paid in Court. Judgment for plaintiff for £8 7s Gd, with costs. Smith v. Wrigg, claim £2 Gs, judgment summons. Order to pay on Feb. S, or one month’s imprisonment. M. Green v. J. Johnston, claim £9 18s, judgment summons.