COMMERCIAL.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1177, 22 November 1883, Page 1

COMMERCIAL.

AUSTRALIAN MARKETS. Melbourne, Nov. 20

The Melbourne Manager of the National Mortgage and Agency Company of New Zealand, Limited, reports of the local grain market as follows ; Wheat, firm and in active demand at 4s 5d to 4s Cd. Malting barley, 3s 9d to 4s 9d ; market weaker. New Zealand oats are m good demand at 2s lid to 3s 2d for feeding, and 3s Id to 3s 2d for milling sorts. New Zealand pats, under bond, are steady at 2s 2d to 2s sd.

A Husband in Trouble.— At the R.M. Court, Timaru, on Tuesday last, George Gibbs was summoned by J. W. White, solicitor, for £ll 4s, for professional services rendered to defendant’s wife when obtaining a maintenance order against him. An order for 10s a week was made against him, and also an order protecting the wife’s. earnings. The parlies had four children, and it was then arranged that the present defendant should have the custody of two of the children, and the wife the ' custody of the others. A Timaru paper states that defendant pleaded that, ho was only a laboring man, not in constant work, and it was as much as ho could do to pay the 10s a week. He did not incur the expense, but his wife, and “if that sort of thing could bo done, a wife - could go and ruin a man.” His Worship reminded him that it was through his own conduct that the wife had to seek the orders and obtain the advice charged for. Defendant then said his wife was keeping a store and going about with a horse and cart, and was far better off than he was. Being asked whether he had two of the children, he said no, his wife would not let him have them. Mr White remarked that ho was getting out of his marital responsibilities very cheaply indeed at 10s a week. Defendant was asked to make some suggestion about payment, but said simply that he could not pay, and judgment was accordingly entered without conditions for tHe full amount, and costs, £1 10s.

A Licensing Case. —At the Eesidcnfc Magistrate's Court, Timaru, last Wednesday, before J. Beswick, Esq, E. M., W. Morgan licensee of the Shamrock Hotel, Timaru, was charged under section 135 of the Licensing Act 1881 with that “he did unlawfully fail to maintain his licensed premises known as the Shamrock Hotel . . . and the aocommodation thereof at the standard required by the said Act.” The penalty provided by the clause for breach of its provisions is that the “ innkeeeper . . . shall be liable to forfeit his license.” Inspector Broham prosecuted, and Mr Perry appeared for defendant., Sergeant Cullen stated that on the 121 h iiist. all the furniture of the,Shamrock Hotel was sold out of the house, so that there was no accommodation. There was now nothing at all in the house except the bar. Even the window blinds and kitchen range were taken away. There were no mean* whatever of providing lodgings or meals. Mr Perry sad there would be no denial of the facts, the defence would be that there, was no such offence known to the law. There wa* no “ standard" of accommodation. A lengthly argument took place between Mr Pender and Mr Perry as to the power of the Bench to adjudicate, and Hu Worship adjourned his decision. 1