R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1374, 9 May 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

FEATHERSTON.-MONDAY. (Before H. S. Wardell, R.M.)

IW; A. P. Sutton v George BookBreach of Eabbit. Nuisauce Act, 1882, iDefendant pleaded guilty and was fined 20a and costs,' :

There was only pnp civil case on the hat and in this judgment was confessed for amount and costs, GREYTOWN-TUESDAY. (Before H.S. Wardeli, R.M., and F. :' H. Wood and S, Bevans, J.P's.) . Bofct McLachlan v Robecca McLach-lan.-^-Assault, Mr Sandilands for informant, Mr Gray for defendant, Mr Sandilands asked permission, to withdraw the case and was allowed to do ,80.,,: .:...:,■, Rebecca McLachlan v Robt McLachlan'.—Breach of Destitute Persons Act 1877, under which the defendant was charged with having deserted his wife ■and three children. There' was also another case botween the same parties in which the husband applied to the court for a,prohibition order under the Licensing Act .to be made against the wife, 'and it was arranged that the widence in both these cases should be -taken at the" same time. After the case had been proceeded with to some length' it was suggested that probably an amicable arrangement could be arrived at botween the parties if a short adjournment was granted. The Court said it would adjourn the further hearing until after the usual adjournment for luncheon, and in the meantime would proceed with the civil cases.: ■

■Giajrtown Volunteer Rifle Corps v George Pound.—Fines, etc., £1 In 6d. Mr Gray for plaintiffs. The defendant was..'unwilling to pay the fines as he had forfeited, his capitation allowance and considered this a sufficient fine. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and COSts. :,,

: Same;,'y A. :M, Hirschberg.—Pines, k;, M 12s 6d. Adjourned to next sitting

■ *A* Everitt V Thomas Bennett— I)obt £23' llr lid. Mr Gray for plaintiff, Mr Saridilands for defendant. Judgment for plaintiff for amount and COStS'. ' :'J. : ■'..;. .i„, . .- '■;■■■

- ..There, were three other cases in which'judgment wasenterod on confession.' ! ";...

Oh the/Cburi; resuming at 2 p.m., in •the case McLachlah v McLachlan a number of witnesses were examined and .cross-examined at great length, and the Court, was, occupied until late in the eveningiu dealing with them, it the- conclusion :of the evidence the Court retired to; consider its decision, and after a short absence the Resident Magistrate intimated' that the case of •alleged desertion -would he dismissed, while the case of application for aprohibition order} the Court was prepared to make one 'against the wife if the husband would • consent to an order .being jmftde against him also, Mr Sandilands said his client could not consent to this course being adopted, and,-the • Court/ declined to make an the wife. A great deal of valuable time wai therefore. wasted,!.; as the parties found themselves in; as; I nearly ;aa 'possible the same' position as j the ■ cases commenced—leag oosti lirfte^%:.^' ; :-:/:'vr; A rJ:;;' : '^;!|