RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1752, 19 June 1888, Page 3

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Temuka—Monday, June 18, 1888,

[Before Captain Wray, R.M.] MAINTENANCE.

I Henderson v. Henderson.-Mr ! Aspinall appeared for the complainant. —The complainant deposed that after the order was made her husband went to Napier. He wrote to her to go to him and he would provide for her, four years ago. £lO was all she had received "since the order was made. Nothing beyond that.—ln reply to His Worship, the complainant said flhe would not go to her husband, as 'she knew he would not treat her kindly.—W. Wills, Clerk of the Court, deposed to the order being made on the 4th May, 1887—15 s a week for the support of Mrs Henderson and her child. Altogether £lO had been paid—£9 through the Court, and £1 direct to Mrs Henderson. There was £3O 10s still due. The order had not been cancelled.—His Worship ordered that the amount due should be paid forthwith, in default three months imprisonment in the Napier gaol. j Gill v. Gill.—This was a similar case to the last. There was no appearance of the defendant.—Sarah Gill deposed that she was the wife of the defendant, William Gill. Two years ago.there.was an order made in this j Court against, her husband for her support—2ss a week. He had not provided that sum weekly. There was about £2O in arrear. She did not know the sum paid. She did not know where her husband was now. He was (in Temuka on the Ist of this month, when he told her he was going to leave the country. He gave her £5. He was not living with her. He came down from Christcburcb, and went away, the same day. He said if he made anything he would send it down, but she did not think he would keep his promise. .- Did not know anything aboufchlm. The summons was served at Greymouth, and when he goTithe came to see her. He gave her tp;understandhe was leaving the counlry-r-that he would work his passage to Japan. He was not a seafaring man; he was a farmer.—Wm. Wills, Clerk to the Court, deposed to the order being made, and that there was a, balance unpaid of £B.—His Worship said a similar order would be made" in this case as in the last—the amount owing to be paid forthwith, or three month's imprisonment in default. (: ~

'CIVII "OASES,

J. W. Velvin v. H. Eoberts (a Maori)—Claim £8 9s defendant admitted the claim, but said he could not pay it. He was willing to pay one; shilling-a week.—His Worship said that it would take a long time—four or five years.—The plaintiff said he was not willing to allow any time. The defendant had been in:work, and got money, and when he asked him for some he said he would nofpjay any.—The Eesident Magistra£e said he did not know what it was in'this island, but in the North he always advised the storekeepers not to give credit" to natives.—-The plaintiff said the * defendant had property.— Judgment for plaintiff with costs.

JF. "Poller v. P. Oldfield-Claim £5 iSslOd. A setoff was put in.—Mr i Aspinall applied for plaintiff, and Mr I White for defendant.—This was a case ] of disputed accounts. The plaintiff J was cooking for Mr Oldfield at his j threshing ; mill' at the r?te of 2s per man per day, or 14s per week. Thegoods, were supplied to the machine by storekeepers on the guarantee of the defendantthat they would be paid for. The plaintiff alleged that the sum claimed, £5 15s lOd, was due, while the defendant urged that he < had orerpaid plaintiff £2 lis. —• Both were examined at considerable length. .Charles Neville, W. Bowman, and Gc. Hawke gave evidence for defendant. His Worship gave judgment for plaintiff for £2 17s and costs. — Mr Aspinall applied for solicitor's fee, .which was granted. G. H. Mogridge v. Meager— Claim £1 13s 2d.—The plaintiff deposed that' the amount was due for goods supplied to defendant's son. The goods were delivered by plaintiff's partner. The plaintiff came to him that morning, and offered to pay 10s on account, and the balance in six weeks, and he advised him to confess judgment.—The defendant deposed that he knew nothing of the claim. He did not know whether the goods were supplied to his son, who was at the Levels at the time. His age was 18 years.—ln reply to His Worship, the defendant said that his son had since died at the Timaru Hospital, and he had come in for bis effects.—After discussion His Worship adjourned the case till next Court day, to enable plaintiff to prove delivery of goods. The Court then rose.