R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 5, Issue 1452, 9 August 1883, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON—THURSDAY.

(Before H. S. Wardell, R.M.)

D, F. McCarthy v W. Dixon.—Debt £2O 13s 4d. Judgment for amount and costs, 255. Same v Roto Tuke,—Debt £7 3s lOd, Judgment for amount and costs, 6s.

Same v Wata Paraone,—Debt £l3 6s 4d. Judgment for amount and costs lis, A. Stewart v John Elley.—£26 amount of dishonored P,N, Tho defendant confessed judgment, and said he would have paid the amount before but objected to' the excessive interest charged. His Worship ruled that the interest was allowable, and gave judgment for amount with Us 4d interest, and £2 Us costs,

Rftine v Raino.—This was w application made to set aside an .order made in 1869 for the support of the wife and children of applicant, the sum of 16s per week being the amount ho had to contribute.

Mr Beard, on behalf of applicant, agreed that as the order was made to support the wife and children till the children arrived at the ago of 14 yoars it was now ontitled to b# rescinded as the only children of the marriage living were now over that age. Mr Bunny, on behalf of the wife, contended that the Court had no power to rescind the order, as it was made out in favor of the wife for the support of the children, and asked the Court not to entertain the application until such time as the applicant paid up the arrears of the order. He would also ask the Court to rule that the wife should have received sufficient notice of. the application so as to be ready with a case in answer to.it, and, in support, called attention to the praotice in the English Courts, where such notices are compulsory imiertlieMamedWornan'B Property Protection Act. The Court held that under the opiiep granted power had been reserved to vary the amount, and unless statuary power was shewn by which that power was revoked, it would reserve the right to use that power. With respect to the application of Mr Bunny that the applicant being, on the 4th June, in

arrear.to tho amount of £7 4a, the Court should not "entertain the cation till all arrears-are satisfied. The; Court ruled thai it would require. tfiej applicant to pay up all ; avreuva till the' time of suspension. before varying orj rescinding; the order, and that the evidence in the future caso will proceed by affidavits of evidence of the witnesses "in' Christchurch.—Case - adjourned, '■ T. Wrigley and W. Sunnex, two Ijoya about twelve years of-age, were charged with breaking certain windows of an unoccupied house belonging to W. Bli'nkhome, in Hope-street, and pleaded nqt guilty, Mr Skipper appeared for defendants. A little ! witness najted Sunnex was called, butlnot sworn, who said he saw Wrigley throw stories at the house, but did not know whother he broke any of the windows. Another little witness named Gunther, who; after being cautioned by the-Court, was duly sworn, said that he knew the two defendants, and saw Wrigley,-.with a catapelt; throw stones at Mr Blinkhorne's windows on two occasions.

By Mr Skipper! Was riot' one of the party. Never threw stones at the windows. Was sute the stones Wrigley threw broke the window, [The little witness, notwithstanding a severe amount of unnecessary bantering, did not get his evidenco shaken in the least]. Another little witness, a brother of the last, corroborated the .evidence, and said he saw Wrigley shoot with the catapelt and make a good shot, but did not have a shot at them himself. The information was dismissed as informal, the Court giving the boys a good lecture on the evils of stonethrowing.

Sutton v W. Lee.-rßreach of the Rabbit A.ct Mr Beard appeared for defendant, and Mr Bunny for the Inspector.

This caase was heard in Carterton, but adjourned sons to enable defendant to bring witnesses to prove lie has no interest in the land, As defendant was not prepared to go on with the case and the plaintiff was agreeablo to occept the minimum penalty his Worship inflicted the minimum penalty of £5, with £3 13s and costs. [Left Sitting,]