Resident Magistrate’s Court, TE AROHA.

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 471, 14 May 1890, Page 2

Resident Magistrate’s Court, TE AROHA.

TUESDAY, MAY 18th, 1890. (Before H. W. Nortiieroft, Esq., R.M..) Mackie v. Clarke: Claim £36 12s balance of monies due. Mr Meldrum, solicitor for plaintiff. In this case C tristina Robertson Mackia sued James Clarke, father of James Alexander Clark, for £36 12s, which amount defendant had personally guaranteed to pay, on behalf of his son. Mr Meldrmn in opening the case for plaintiff briefly reverted to the circumstances which led up to the present action being taken, as follows : Oil October 9th. 1888, the said Jas. Alex. Clarke was adjudged the putative father of the illegitimate child of the present prosecutor, and ordered to pay 10s per week for the child’s maintenance until it attained the age of fourteen : and failing so to do was sent to gaol. On April 9th, 1889, he was again brought before the Court, and still failing tocomply with the maintenance ordervvas again sent to gaol. Shortly afterwards his father (the present defendant) came before the Court and asked to have a lump sum awarded in lieu of the order previously made This was done, the Court fixing the amount at £56 12s, the father paying £2O down and personally guaranteeing that the balance of £36 12s should he shortly afterwards paid. The time for paying the balance was subsequently extended to Christmas 1889, but the money had not yet been paid, and the son 1 had cleared out for Broken Hill. His Worship to defendant: lias your son gone away. Defendant: Yps Yonr Worship. Christina 11. Mackie on oath deposed to the judgment being given, etc., and that neither she or any person on her behalf had ever- received 1 any portion of the £3O 12s, and that she now sued the father, on his guarantee for the amount. Theodore Minet Lawler* Clerk of the Court, on oath deposed to the defendant paying the £2O cash, and giving the guarantee, now produced in evidence, for the balance, £B6 12s, and stated defendant signed the guarantee in witness’s presence. This was the caso for the prosecution,

the defendant stilting lie ha luo qir»slions to imk. - For. tli" defence James Chirke ad—--IresJng His VVor. hip sai I : , That guarantee is an i!!«*»>•.•«I document. Yonr Worship, it is not stamped aim can only lie stamped now mvlpr u tine of £5. His Worship : Is that tiie only defunct* von have to make. Defendant : Thai’s all Yon** Honor, the' document not being statnpe>l is illegal, am! cannot,''therefore lie produced in C'ouit in evidence against me. His Worship : But the iloeument has nlrea'ly been aaniitted by the Court, ami is already in evidenee. Defendant : But it can’t be Yonr Honor, not being stamped. It is liable la a line of Ls its not a legal iloeument at all not being stamped. His Worship: If that’s yonr only defence I shall give judgement against you. Defendant : That’s my defence Yonr Worship. I have a ropy of the document here in my mvn pocket. Its no a stampel document... . His Worship : And (lie Court has the original d< meat itself, which is better than a co /. Judgment for L3G 12s and costs L 8 2s. This was nil the business—one other rase being railed an 1 adjourned by the Court to May 27tb.