MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Taranaki Daily News, 28 April 1922, Page 7

MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

t NEW PLYMOUTH CASES YESTERDAY’S SITTING. In the New Plymouth Court yesterday Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M.,_ gave I judgment for plaintiff by default in the following cases: —W. C. Weston v. O. Le Page £l4 6s 9d (costs £2 19e); Stamton and Co., Ltd. v. George A. Pugh £ll 4s 3d (costs £2 17s); H. J. Lowe v. Harold W. Hill £l5O Is 4d (costs £8 10s); same v. Karl A. Johansen £24 10s 6d (costs £4 Ils); Amy S. Locke v. P. M. Evemden £l6 16s (costs £2 14s; the D.O.A. v. F. Hickey £27 Os 3d (costs £3 4s); New Plymouth Borough Council v. Janies G. King £1 18s 2d (costs 8s); George Pearce v. P. P. Eva £6 8s 2d (costs £1 Ips 6d). On a judgment summons William Hart was ordered to pay Edward Gluekman £4 9s 6d, within fourteen days, in default 5 days’ imprisonment.

SEPARATION ORDER GRANTED. Persistent cruelty was alleged by Gladys S. Mumby (Mr. R. H. Quilliam), who applied for an order of separation from her husband Edward B. Mumby (Mr. H. R. Billing). Maintenance for herself and three children was also asked for by complainant. Mr. Quilliam said the parties were married at Stratford in May, 1918, the defendant being then a widower with two children. Since the marriage three children had been born. Trouble had arisen soon after the marriage, and had continued practically all the time, Mumby ill-treating his wife. About 12 months ago the parties came to live at Fitzroy, and the ill-treatment had been since persisted in. Mr. Quilliam said Mumby’s behaviour, mad,e it questionable ae to whether or not he was perfectly sane. Subsequently Mrs. Mumby left her husband and made a demand for maintenance. Counsel said he thought a settlement on the question of separation could have been reached but for the offer of defendant to contribute 30s per week towards the wife and four children. It was a totally inadequate amount. Counsel for defendant admitted that it was desirable that the parties should not live together. The point, however, was that his client wa-s unable to contribute any more than the 30s per week and he was prepared to do that, though he said there was no ground for the separation order as defendant provided a home and was willing that his wife should share it with him. If they epnGented to the separation they would also have to consent to an order for maintenance, and as they contended there was no actual ground for separation, he thought the whole question had better be gone into. The complainant gave evidence as to her husband’s behaviour. In reply to Mr. Billing, she denied that the trouble was due to her lack of attention to him or to her treatment of his two children She admitted that when her husband worked her up into a state of excitement she did things without knowing wlrat she was doing, but it was all his fault.

The mother of the complainant, Louisa. Murray, of Stratford, said that her daughter and Mumby lived near her at Stratford for some time. She detailed various scenes between Mumby and his wife. She could not understand Mumby’s attitude. He had told several people that she was the cause of all the trouble, while he had told one person that she had been very good to

The defence, Mr. Billing said, was a denial of the acts of cruelty, and he attributed much of the trouble to the excitable nature of Mrs. Mumby. In reply to His Worship, counsel agreed that in view of the circumstances it was a case for separation, but this was not to be taken as an admission of cruelty. Jn view of the separation being agreed upon the Court went into the question of respondent’s earnings and his ability to pay maintenance. An order for separation and guardianship of the children was made, maintenance being fixed, at £2 5s per week and £lO for past maintenance. Solicitors’ fee of £2 2s on application was also allowed. CAR DRIVER PROSECUTED. The circumstances of an accident on the evening of January 2, when a motor (jar collided with a tram in St. Aubyn Street, was the centre of a prosecution brought by the borough inspector (Mr. R. Day) against M. T. Priest, who was charged with driving his car negligently and to the danger of the public. Mr. C. H. Croker appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. The inspector stated that on the date mentioned Priest was driving towards the breakwater when he collided practically head on with a tramcar. In view of this circumstance it was contended that it was fairly obvious defendant must have been negligent. The first witness was A. J. Joyce, farmer, Omata, who said he had pulled up nis car, to mend a puncture, on the side of St. Aubyn Street, when Priest passed and collided with the tramcar about a chain further on.

Motorman F. R. Davy, who was driving the tramcar concerned in the accident, gave evidence as to ringing the gong when he saw the car o’ l the tram track. The driver did not shift. Witness applied the magnetic' brake and the tram was practically at a standstill when the collision occurred. Other evidence was given bv J. T. White, Arthur Wilson and Charteris (conductor on the tram). For the defence, Mr. Croker said it 1 was contended that the occurrence was a purely accidental one and that it was not due to any negligence on the part of defendant. He had paid the sum of £l7 as recompense for the damages to the car, and thought the matter was finished. Defendant, in detailing the circumstances of the accident, said when he turned the corner at the Terminus Hotel he was met by the bright lights of a motor car, which was coming towards him. It was not till he got out of the beam of the light that he saw the tram was also coming in the same direction and it was then too late to avoid an accident. To Mr. Day: As he was rendered unconscious lie did not know what became of the car with the bright lights. Evidence in support of defendant’s car was given by B. R. Blackall and Elsie Priest, wife of defendant. His Worship decided t-o enter a con'viction. but did not consider it a ease for any considerable penalty. Defend-

ant would be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution. MOTOR CYCLIST CONVICTED. Edward Deane, on the information of the police,, was charged with riding a motor-cycle past a tramcar while the latter was stopped for the purpose of setting down passengers. He was convicted and ordered to pay costs amounting to 7s. On a charge of riding at an excessive speed he was convicted and fined £2 (costs 7s). CADETS FINED. For failure to attend parades, as required by the Defence Act, a number of cadets belonging to No. 90 Company were convicted and fined £1 (costs 7s). The defaulters were: Reginald Simpson, L. E .Smith, J. White, and Leo. Allen. L. B. Inch was convicted and fined 5s (costs 7s).