R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 4, Issue 1065, 4 May 1882, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON-THIS DAY.

Before H. S. Wardeu, E.M., and A, Bish, JiP.

Mrs Kilburn v Mra Treneary,—Obscene and abusive language, Mp Bunny for the plaintiff, and Mr Skipper for the defendant,

Mr Skipper said his client was willing to apolonise and pay expenses of the case if it were withdrawn.

The Sergeant said that the language was heard in the street.

Mr Skipper said' tlialr the parties had left the neighborhood, and no recurrence of the complaint was likely to take place. The Court said it was willing to comply with a request from the informant to withdraw the case, and Ihe police could take the matter up if they thought proper to do so.

' Mr Bunny said the informant desired to proceed ivith the case, as no apology had been actually made, nor had the expenses been paid, The case was adjourned for a few minutes to enable parties to arrange what course should be taken.

After the adjournment, Mr Bunny said he was informed that the defendant pleaded guilty, Mr Skipper said he had advised his client to plead guilty. He submitted that language coming from an uneducated purson should not be accopted too literally. He trusted that the case would be dealt with by an admonition from the Court. His client was not in a positiuu to pay a fine.

The Court said it must have some knowledge of the facts before dealing with the case, otherwise it would have no alternative hut to inflict the maximum fine.

Mr Skipper said the dispute was a personal one between the parties. The Court could not take it in that light, Women of the defeijdant's class must be taught not to indulge in obscene language. Mr Skipper said his object was not to offend the ears of the Court by the recital of such language. Mr Buimy at the request of the Court stated that Mrs Treneary made an application to Mrs Kilburn for some money at her door in Wrigley-street, and the defendant not obtaining it used the language attributed to her., A row ensued, and the police had to be sent for to suppress it. There were neighbors about who heard the language used, The Court addressing the defendant said the words used by her ought never to have been used by any woman. They were filthy and polluting, and sh« was liable to a penalty of ±'lo or three months imprisonment. It. proposed to make a penalty with the concurrence of his brothel' Justice which would restrain the use of such language. It did not know what means the defendant had of paying, but a fine of two pounds would ue inflicted or in default fourteen days hard labor. The defendant: —l will do the fourteen days, The defendant was then removed, followed by a daughter about ten years of age.

George Pugsley v John Delwood.Debt £5 3s Gd, stabling charges, Judgment for amount and costs.

Sutton v H. J. Percy.—Breach of Sheep Act, removing sheep without a certificate fipm the Inspector, The defendant pleaded guilty, The informant did not prew for a penalty, but said it was important that unauthorised removals should not be made. The defendant in the present caso had merely forgotten to look at the Act prior io moving his sheep, Hie Court was not sure that it was not necessity to look at the Act before a man got his sheep into his own yard, The maximum penalty was fifty pounds to which defendant was liable, but as the informant was content with a nominal penalty, it would inflict a fine of Is and 7s costs. The penalty must not be considered a precedent, and was only made at the desire of the informant.

James Maoara v P. Cohen-Debt £ll4s 6dl Mr Board fov plaintiff, Judgment for plaintiff foe amount and costs, £2 Is, H. McUuckau v Daniel IJgan,—Jud° r » ment summons £l3 4s 4d, Mr Beard lor plaintiff. Order mado. Peter Neilseu v Chas Broadbent,— Debt .£B. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judo. ment for amount and costs.

Walter J. Nathan v Anaru Harawira.Debt £43 Bs. Mr Beard for plaintiff. Judgment for amount and costs. Same v Brum Tamati.—Judgment summons 14s lOd. Order made. CARTERTON,-WEDNESDAY, Featherston Highway Board v Charles J, Jury,—Debt £7 6s, Judgment for' amount and obsts, nin ® loll ' )ev Adam Armstrong,—Debt ~j? Mr Collins for plaintiff, and Mr Gray for defendant, Judgment for amount and costs,