R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1053, 20 April 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

GREYTOJVNVrUESDAY. ! Before J. Touy aud F. H. Wood, . .T.P.'s. Constable Eccleton v Henry Barling.— Drunkenness. Fined 5s and costs. M. Caselberg v Strawtridge.-Debt £lO 7s 3d. Judgment for amount and costs, Before H. S. Wardell, R.M. T. Frethey v H. Dudding.-Breaoh of Sheep Act, 1878, Section 57, Fined Is and costs, . W. A. P. Sulton vJ. Tully.—Breach of Babbit Nuisance Act, Dismissed on the ground that the notice served upon defendant was informal. CARTERTON-WEDNESDAY. Before H. S, Wardell, B.M. Constable James Bennetts v R- Wylie. —Furious riding. Fined 40s and costs, Same v G. Gravin.—Drunkenness. Fined ss. J. Waghorn v J. H. Robertß.-Debt £6. Plaintiff nonsuited. Seven informations under the Rabbit Nuisance Act, 1881, which had been laid by Mr Sutton were withdrawn.

MASTERTON-THURSDAY. . [Before H. S. Wardell, E/M.l Ingram v Manihera Maka.—Breach of Borough by-laws by riding across a footpath on the 12th of April in Queen-st, He repeated the offence after having been cautioned by the informant. Defendant who did not appear was fined 5s and 7s costs, Sergt, McArdle v William Smith. Breach of the Constabulary Act. The police asked that the case should be withdrawn as the defendant had left the district, William Rieux v James Cashman. MiBeard and Mr Skipper for the prosecutor. Mr Beard, said that in consequence of a family bereavement Mr Bunny desired a remand, and on b«half of the prosecution he would be happy to consent to ine.

The Court asked the defendant what his wish was in the matter. The defendant said he did not know what to say in the matter. It was very hard for him to be sent back time after lime, He had been under arrest for the last three weeks. Mrs Reiux expressed a desire to address the Court. She said, "Your Worship, I was never married to him in my life. If he can show me his marriage hues " The Court declined to hear Mrs Reiux. Defendant: I suppose I should be the better for the assistance of a solicitor as there are two solicitors for the prosecution. I suppose I had better have the case remanded till Mr Bunny is present. The Court remanded the case till that day week. The constable stated that the accused would have to be sent down to Wellington in the interim,

It was subsequently arranged that Mr Sandilands should appear for the defendant and that the case should be taken later in the day.(Resumed.) Mr Sandilands submitted that the goods being found at Wanganui the charge shoidd have been made in that place. The Court replied that a Resident Magistrate was a Magistrate for the Colony, Mr S uulilnnds said that His Worship could hear the case at Wanganui but not in the Wairarapa. If the charge is only larceny of goods in this district he would admit that the caso could be heard.

Mr Beard said the goods were stolen in the Wairarapa and found at Wanganui. Mr Sandilands said that the prisoner was entitled to lmow whether he had to answer a charge of larceny committed in the Wairarapa or in Wanganui, The Court stated that it understood that the larceny was committed in this district, It understood also that the powers of the Resident Magistrate were not limited to the special district over which he presided. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was much more limited than that of the lower one. Mr Beard stated that the information charged the prisoner with committing the, offence at Mauriceville, but when She goods were removed to Wanganui tbc dffeiroe"was a continuous one. Mr Sandilands said he intended show im,' for the defence that-at the time prisoner left Mauriceville there was rnintention on his part of living in adulter;, with the wife of complainant, also to shov utter ignorance on the part of theprisonn of the contents of Iho box, He quoted a legal authority to show that thd intentio to commit adultery was the test of stealiu the property, He also was prepared li. show that the interval spent in Wellington destroyed all connivance on tli part of the prisoner. Ho state 1 that the woman left with the consent J the husband. On arriving at Wellington Bhe went one way arid the prisom r another, no criminal intercourses takii'g place. Mrs Reiux wentjto Wanganui o i account of reports which got into the newspapors, and the prisoner did nt follow till six days later. During thn period the goods remained in the possesion of the wife. He concluded by calling upon Mr Reiux to give evidence, Mr Beard objected to Mrs Rieux beii ut called as the law did not allow a wife to give evidence for or against her husband in a criminal case, or even in a case whm a woman cohabited with a man, Mr Sandilands claimed that a married woman could be called to give eiidence against a man wbo was not her busbanil. The Court held that it was not only when a husband ■ was charged with an offence that his wife's evidence could not bo taken.

Mrs Reiux sworn, deposed ;my name is.Maria, I am the wife of the prosecutor. I was living with him last Maroh.

The Court : I think Mr Sandilands that this witness said a short time ago that she was not his wife. Mr Sandilands: She is wife enough for thie purpose.

Mrs Reiux theu commenced to give a volnblo account, of her separation from her husband, whioh ruse out of the purchase of goods in Masterton. She had left him twice before, and he had fetched her back, He started her off. He gave £l3 on Monday afternoon and told her to clear and never come back again, as she had done before. She did not like to go till dark, because she was ashamed. She packed the box before him, and carried it herself out of the house, Her husband asked Oashman to buy him out. She never made any arrangements at that or any previous time to leave and lire with him as his wife. She asked Coshman to engage the brake. She asked him when he got the brake to help her to put the boxes in. Cashman said he was afraid if he helped her he would get into trouble. Mr Beard objected to the evidence of what Mrs Eieux said to Cashman.

■ The Court: Aotions sometime speak louder than words, A long argument then took place as to the rules of evidence. Mr. Beard saying that the wife should not be allowed to come before the Court, and do all the in« jury Bhe could to her'.husband's case. [left sitting.]

■ Walter J. Nathan v Hnmuerd Wer»W —Debt J635 4a 4a. Mrßeard for plaff tiff,: 120 paid in. Mgmentforbalanoe and costs. Schroder, Booper & 00. v E. Wrigley, -Debt £ Bl4s. 4d. Judgmeut for amount and costs. J. 0. Ingram v D, MoLaohlan.Breaoh of Borough by-laws. Fined 6s and costs. Sutton v Olliver.- Breaoh of Babbit Act. Information withdrawn.