RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S' COURT.

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume XXIV, Issue 9662, 6 November 1882, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S' COURT.

•Saturday, 4th November. -. (Before R. Ward, Esq.,,BiM.) ' ■' ' Wahdebino Animals.— W.H. Forder, Pubira Turei,-andW. Kerr,,'npne of whom appeared, were each fined os, and : 7s costs, for allowing horsbs to.; wander, , at large.'— John McGregor pleaded not;' guilty to, a 'like charge, and; said that . he h'ad -tethered the horse in. an ope^fe. paddock.-- Information dismissed. * John Edwards pleaded guilty to allowing a | cow towander at large, and was fined i:--ss, and 7s costs. Affiliation Case. — John Colling-.' wood, described as a gardener, was • summoned by Isabella Wilkie for.refusing to contribute to her seven weeks' old illegitimate child, of which he was -' ihe father. Mr Barniooat appeared for defendant, who pleaded not guilty. Both complainant and defendant appeared to be very ynuug. — Complainant — deposed that the child was born on the 27th' August, and defendant was the father of it. He had paid. her £2 os, at . I the rate of 5s for nine weeks, which I was insufficient to keep the child. He had never disputed being its father. Had asked him for more money, but he said tbat ho could not give it at present. Complainant was a servant out of a place. Defendant paid to-complainaat's ■ brother .£3 for expenses of the confinement. Would be satisfied ' with 7s 6d per week. — By Mi- Barnicoat : There/ would be a weekly payment of 5s diiefp that day. Would swear that she had told defendant that 53 per week was not sufficient, and that she had never made an arrangement with him at that rate. He had promised to give her 7s - 7d a week when he got more wages, but witness could not say whether he was paid more now. Told defendant on one occasion that she would never, take him into Court, but in consequence of his abusing her brother when he went for the money she wished it to be p9id into Court. Witness had been in s;rvice since the child was born, bufhad lost her place through' taking out the present summons. — Complainant's brother was called, and stated that he had never had any conver- ' sation with defendant, as to the rate per week he was to pay. Witness estimated that it would cost 15s per week to keep defendant's child. — The brother's wife was also called, and said that she -had kept the child, but was too unwell to do so any longer. Witness had tried to get other people to take the child at 10s a week, but no one would do it under 12s, and it was worth 15s. — Mr Barnicoat said that the defendant did not dispute the paternity of the child, but contended that he had done all that' he could do for the mother, and was unable to do more. The Act was not intended to be a means of extorting money. — The defendant was called, and swore that the complainant , had expressed herself to him as being quite satisfied with 5s per week, and had said that she would never take him ipt<^. Court. Witness was a gardener, earning^ 25s per week, out of which he had to : keep himself. Was living with his father, but was not able to pay more T than 5s per week to the complainant. "'■ Had been in the habit, prior to this . affair, of paying his father £1 a week for board and lodging, and keeping the other os for clothes. Could not pay more than os per week Without his father's assistance. Witness was 19 years of age — His Worship was of opinion that at- present defendant was not ablo to contribute more than 5s per week ; but that sum would not be sufficient to support the child when it grew older, say 12 months hence. It would . be a great injustice to the complainant to merely order defendant to pay 5s per week for the whole 14 years contemplated by the Act. — Mr Barnicoat suggested ■ that an order should be made at the_ rate of us for 12 months, giving complainant > power to apply again at the end of that period. — His Worship said that no such order could be made, as the Act did not allow periodical applications. — After some further discussion between the parties, the defendant agreed to continue the 5s per week for 12 months ; and, by consent of the complainant, and, without prejudice to her right to come to the Court ugain if defendant's wages increased, the information was dismissed. civil case. Donald Potter v. James Hastie. Claim for £3 10s, damages for illegal detention of a watch. The plaintiff was ri-oalled, and denied that he had eye?^" told defendant's brother Eobert that he had sold the watch to the defendant, y. Was quite certain that he (plaintiff) had ■ merely borrow&d £1 from defendant upon security of the watch. — William Akers, accountant, slated that plaintiff gave him an order to obtain ihe watoh from defendant on payment of £1. On witness presenting the order/ to defendant, tho latter said the watch was hist Witness tendered the £1, anfl offered to pay any further sum that was due from plaintiff. Would not be positive whether defendant eaid that the watoh was his,

or merely left, in His possession, but re-, membere'd defendant saying that plaintiff owed hire £3. for board and cash lent. — The evidence of defendant, taken at Feilding, was .read, and was to the effect that' the watch was sold by defendant 'to.^lear.off the debt due from him, andlwas hot; taken. in pledge. — Defendant's brother, Robert Hastie, also had his evidence taken at Feilding, and was very, positive that .plaintiff had told him that he.liad sold. the watch. Plaintiff was .nonsuited with costs, The Court then adjourned.