Resident Magistrate's Court. WEDNESDAY, SEPT, 3rd, 1889.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 399, 4 September 1889, Page 2

Resident Magistrate's Court.

WEDNESDAY, SEPT, 3rd, 1889.

(Before n.W. Northcroffc, Esq., R.M) Jas. H. Rowe v, H. Kirby. Claim, £1 7a Bd, for ireat supplied. No appearance of defendant. Judgement for £1 7b Bd, and costs 6s. N. Ferguson v. 0. Gayer. In this'case accused was charged on the information of Nathaniel Eergnson, that he did, between, August 16th and 18th, feloniously steal and take away 3 bags of oats, 3 bags of bran, and ore cheese, the property of informant, and valued at #3 lOh. Ike police conducted the prosecution, and Mr MoVeagh, solicitor, appeared f?r tho defendant, who pleaded, Not Guilty. The evidence adduced was entirely of a ciicumatuntial character ; but His Worship was not satisfied with accused's explanation as t'> how he came by certain feed , found at hh stablea .it W'lioiongpmai, and ■convicted him of tho offence charged. Mr MeVeagh applied that defendant receive the boncfit of the ITirst Offenders probation Act, being a first offence. His Worship said he would consider the iipplicution.andresorvedscntenceuntillnoxt Court diy, to allow of the Thames Pro- . tuition Officer reporting on the application,b.iil being meantime accepted, accused in '£50, and one surety, Mr \t. Q'Keeffe, in £50, [A full report of the evidence in this case is held over until our next isstfe.], Mai tin Murphy v. Thomas Murphy. In this ease accused pleaded guilty (1) to assaulting plaintiff, who, is the proprietor of the Premier Hotel, Waiorongoroai, on August 24th ; (2) to breaking i\ pan.c of glass in said hotel on same dato. A further ehaigo of using obsoeno lan guago on the same occasion, was withdrawn by plaintiff. The police staled plaintiff did not wish tox a severe sentence. Oidored to pay £2 10s, being value of the pane oL' glass, witnesses costs, etc., and with respect to the first chargejudireuient was resetvod until Noveinhei 26th., in order to see how dofauiLiut conducted himself me.iuwhiiu Police v. l)onoi;hua. Fn this case defendant olr.u'od guilty to making use of abtihi\e Ki'ii;itiige in tiio ><iid o th.-P.ilaou Hotel on 3 L-LL -L tilt. Fiuei! £■•!, aii'l cu.st^, 7-s. Julia Tiislm v. John Taylor, Mi McVeigh, solicitor for plainhH;, stated t!u> ua-> an applic.ition und-jr the Moiiiud Wuiujiis Property Act, 1880, that an oide! fot maintenance ot In-, children >l>e made au<un->t the- defendant ; against whom, a.n oidei; was nude some months , ago for protection ; and for the custody of the children. Julia fthtlioiTiiyliu (mvoiu), c-uA ; I luve nix children in my cuoto-1) , o^ed from two years to twelve yeais. 1 am ppnoipully in the employ of Mi E. Y (Jjx, and my own earniu^s aie about 18s per week. The only reason my hiisb.uid gave mo for not maintaiiuug Lit childien \v,is> tlut hesud ho would do nothing until hoeun.eb.xvk to his home, and then he would do the nest he could for their,. My hu-b.ied h.is been iniogul.n work ioi ab->utthu la.sttluue months at Mr Roche's. Mr Roche told me he paid him 2u2 u 6d <i day »nd iiis food, or at the rate ot 15a a week and found, My two eldest sons, when in employ, give mo their wages. One emne ixbout 63 and the jOtli^er aboutss p.r week. E^Y. Cox(swoin), said: MisTaj-lor is in my employ. She it'ceivc* 12s from my , wife for washing, etc., and !->s a week from ,me for washing out the schoolhouse, etc. This occupies about tour days a week, and I believe she generally gets about another 'da}-** work in the week. ( Joljn Taylor (awosn) : All I have drawn is £6, dining tho last tinoe motilh-, 11s 1 could only gut woik on fine days. I have done a good. d#al of woik for, Mr Squirrell, .storekeeper, but lwilf my earnings are deducted towards payment of back debts 'incurred before my wife got separation. His Worship : Mis Taylor asked for and got the custody of tho children at her own ;rcqucbt she agreeing to take absolute chaigo of them, as she said with the assistance of her two eldest boys, she thought she would bo able to maintain the family. I don't think theiofoi-3 she should ask for this. Defendant objected to the custody of the whole of the children being given .plaintiff, at the time the order was made. \ Defendant: lam willing now to take , charge of all the children, and wish to have them. His Worship: That will relieve Mrs Taylor of the maintenance. In fact, I think, if it could be so a 1 ranged between them, the bet-t thing for all concerned would be tor tho parties in this action to make up their differences and run together again. Defendant .ippe.ired to be keeping sober now and willing to work,. Plaintiff etated she would not consent to that, but would i.ither withdiaw the plaint and struggle on, us she h.ul Iwn doing. Case withdiawn .it n.qui->t oC [»hiin\iftj.