RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1635, 17 September 1887, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE’S COURT.

Geraldine— Thursday, Sept. 15, 1887. [Before J. S. Beswick, Esq., R.M., and H. W. Moore, Esq., J.P.] CATTLE TRESPASS. An offender was fined 10s for allowing four head of cattle to wander at large. CIVIL CASKS. J, S. Waite v. Bull, —Claim £4 12s 6d, principally for goods supplied to defendant’s wife. Mr White for defendant. Mr Waite proved the account as correct, and stated that defendant told him to allow his wife to have a few things, but not to go very high. To Mr White: Had a case against him before, in which be (Mr Waite) bad allowed Mr Bull to have goods to the amount of £7. The case was settled for the £7. Immediately after the last case plaintiff went to Peel Forest, and defendant said his wife wanted some things for tbe children, and plaintiff could allow her to have goods to the amount of £5. Had frequently asked him for the money. He did not believe that defendant could neither read nor write, as he fal y believed that defendant could do both.

Mr White called defendant, who stated he could neither read nor write except to a ve r y limited extent. Could sign his name, but that was about all, [The Magistrate here asked defendant to sign his name, which he did with bis left hand. His Worship asked him to do so with his right hand, when he got on better.] Defendant continuing to Mr White Did not know his wife was being : trusted with goods bv plaintiff- Sometime ago was sued by plaintiff for money owing by defendant or his wife. It Johnston was present when r-lainfciff came to him (defendant) and told him his wife was owing about £7. 'I hat was about 12 months ago. Defendant told plaintiff not to let her have any more goods, as he would not be responsible for her. The claitn was afterwards settled tor the £7. Did not know his wife was incurring the present account. Had supplied his wife with the means of keeping house. Had cautioned her not to i ledsre his f red it for goods twelve months back. Was not aware the present account was owing u■ itil be got the summons. To Plaintiff : Recollected a eingyou at Peel Forest. Sou did not ask me 1 about the account. Hud not known • of his wife buying the shirts. Never

told you to let my wife have goods to the extent of £5. You spoke to me about this account three weeks ago. Tou came to me and asked, me to pay my wife’s account, and I said I had nothing to do with her accounts. You asked me to bring wood down in settlement of the account, and I refused. Do not remember telling you that I had given my wife £8 to pay this and some other accounts, and that she spent the money in the town. Had not paid any draper’s bills lately. Had not paid Mr Pearpoint £1 16a for drapery during the past month. Plrintiff asked His Worship to take a note of this, as he could prove it was incorrect.

To Mr White; Had never received shirts from his wife. If she had had any it was not for him but for the children.

Mr ‘White called Reuben Johnston, who stated that he waa present about 16 months ago when plaintiff came up to defendant andtold him he had an account against him of £7 for goods obtained by his wife. Defendant refused to pay it, and told plaintiff n,ot to let his wife have any more goods, Mr White, addressing the Court, contended that his client was not liable for tbe amount, as he bad told plaintiff not to let his wife have any goods. His Worship after hearing the evidence of the two parties he was quite satisfied that the defendant had given the plaintiff authority to allow his wife to have goods to the amount of £5. They preferred to believe the plaintiff before the defendant. Judgment was given for the amount claimed and costs, plaintiff being cautioned to supply no more goods to plaintiff’s wife. [On referring to the Court records, tbe previous case turned out to have been heard three years ago.] The defendant came hack into the Court, and said that on account of what he had just been told by the defendant he wished to apply for immediate execution, whicn was granted. This being all the business, the Court ad journed till that day month.