RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 3992, 14 October 1881, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT

THIS DAY;

(Before H. Kenrick, Esq., 8.M.) DBUNIENNESS.

One person, a bushman, was charged with this offence, and was fined ss, the lowest penalty allowable under the new LicensingKAct, or in default; 12 hours' imprisonment.

EBABUBES FBOM THB BOLL.

The esses of Wm. Souter and John Bullock, adjourned last Tuesday to prove service of summons, were called, and as defendants did not appear, t their names were struck off the roll.

AITKEN V. NOBBUBY.

This was an application by the plaintiff

. 3et aside a protection order granted to defendant by the Court some years ago in order to enable plaintiff to sue defendant for £3 8s mouey lent to her husband.

Mr Brassey for plaintiff and Mr Miller for the defendnnfc.

Mary Norbury, sworn, deposed—She was a grocer carrying on business ii Pollen street. She obtained a protection order against her husband from the Court in 1876, and he returned to her some time ago. He helped her in the shop, and sometimes receipted bills, made up the pass-book, or received small sums. He bad no interest in any mines, &c, in conjunction with her. She had warned the plaintiff not to give Mr Norbury credit, and had, in fact, warned all her customers. Her husband never signed bills in connection with the busi> ness, and the banking account was in her own name. Her husband never worked constantly in the shop, but did so when he had a mind to. She had no fault to find with her husband except that he drank.

By Mr Miller—lt was, and is, the wish of her creditors that sue should have the protection order. The business altogether; was carried on in her name. :

Thomas Aitkcn, the plaintiff, deposedPrevious to the judgment obtained against him last week, he served defendant with milk, and dealt with her. Mr Norbury generally served him, and also signed his pans-book. Mr Norbury informed him ■ that the business was all his?bnt_that his wife had a protection order against him. He lent Mr Norbury £S one afternoon, when he was buying Bcrip. By Mr Miller—He owed defendant money when he lent him the £3. -Defendant did not tell him not to give her husband any more credit till after the £3 was lent. He had also lent Norburj Bs. The passbook referred to was then produced, and handed to first witness, who deposed as to the signatures.

His Worship refused the application, saying that there were no grounds whatever for which to set aside the order.

Court adjourned. "•$