RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1349, 4 June 1885, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine—'Tuesday, June 2,1885. (Before the Hon. L. Walker, Esq., and Capain Temple, J.P.’s.) ALLEGED MURDER. Samel Charles Trengrove was charged with having caused the death of his. wife, Hannah Trengrove, on the 11 tu May last. JJr Foster appeared, on behalf of Mr Hamersley, for accused, who pleaded not guilty. Inspector Broham conducted the prosecution. The evidence in chief of all the witnesses was the same as that given at the inquest. The greater part of the case was heard with closed doors, All the witnesses were cross-examined by Dr Foster, but nothing of any importance was elicited. The accused was committed to take his trial at the next sitting of the Supreme Court at liraaru.

TEMUKA. Wednesday, June 3, 1885. [Before S. D. Barker, and D. Inwood, Esqs., J.P.’s. CIVIL CASES. C. Story v, R. Burk—Claim £1 6s 6d.—Judgment by default for the amount claimed and costs. O. Matthews y. T. Foley—Claim £4. Mr Aspinall appeared for defendant. Owing to a witness not being present, be having refused to attend, the case was adjourned for a week, a warrant to issue to compel his attendance, and Matthews to pay the cost of adjournment.' O. Matthews v. V. Heffernan—claim £2 15s, services of a horsa. Mr Aspinall appeared for the defendant. Mazengarb, the groom, stated that the agreement was half guarantee at the rate of £5 16s. Dennis Heffernan said the arrangement was a full guarantee at £6. To the best of Lis belief the mare was now in foal and he was willing to pay the amount of guarantee, James Heffernan, son of the defendant, gave similar evidence. Judgement was given for the plaintiff for the amount claimed and costs. J, M. Naughton v. K. Cameron. As there was no appearance of the plaintiff the case was struck out. O. Matthews v, Turkington—claim £6, services of a horse. Judgement by default for amount claimed and costs, protection order. Mr Aspinall applied for a protection order, under the Married Women’s Proierly Protection Act, on behalf of Mrs May Henderson. The evidence of Mrs Henderson was to the effect that her husband deserted her in October last, and since that date had failed to contribute to (he support of his family ; that some months ago she took out an information for a maintenance order against him but the police were unable to serve it ; that she had beard he had been working at Napier and had proceeded to Auckland, and that she did not know now where he was. He had treated her with great cruelty and expressed to several people his intention of leaving her. An order was made granting her the protection prayed for and also the custody of her daughter until she attained the age of 18 years, and that Hctkderson pay £1 per week as maintenance lor his chiW.