R.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 6, Issue 1701, 3 June 1884, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

MASTERTON.-410NDAY.

(Before H. S. Wardell, R.M.J*

Amelia Mackersay v. William Mackersay.—Protection order. Mr Skipper for the defendant who appeared in the box on crutches, When the case was resumed Mrs Mackersay said it was two years a"o that day, (worse luck) since she was married to her present husband, who was a widower, and she was then a widow with a family, Mackersay had spat in her face, struck her, and used obscene language to her before the children, and when she told him he ought not to go in the children's room to do his hair without having clothing on, he threw the hair and whiskers from the comb into her face, and sheihought it cruel. He once threw a stick at her, and it struck her on thechestand bvoko the stick, this being when his. leg was broken and defendant was in bed, defendant's reason being that he was in great pain, and; wanted his wife to relieve him. Defendant had given her no- money since Christmas last, but thestorekeepers had not refused !her credit, and would not do so, • There was a heavy bill'for bread. Mr Skipper, (tor defendant):.S,hall youpayit? Witness continued': I earn a little money at washing, and I spend that on the children and the things in the house, Defendant to plaintiff: Your daughter is but at ten and eleven o'clock nearly overy night, and I won't have her come home at that time; You said you would rather see her on the streets than be without.food, •.

Plaintiff! You know girls will have boys'! '' -.'■' ' ' '■• Defendant:. You expose me.everywheve. - ■■"■•'; Plaintiffs Whatever' the /doctor: ordered you'l would get it if possible. Yes, for yourself. Plaintiff; \ Fie oil you Maekasay, you ought to. be trounced and hooted out of the town.

The Court': Some• men : are unfortunate—

Witnes (interrupting) • He's very fortunatoJ, .••: \ . ■';'.

The Court: And' so are Home women 1 .

Witness: Eight, so,am.l. .' Court: Do you wish to call any of your daughters ?• Witness, yes 1 ■

Carrie Maekasay, called, said she ; was ..present several times' .when defendant-struck her mother and swore at her,

MraMackersay: Did you see defendant throw a candlestick- at me ? Witness: Yes. ■'. TheUpurt'said he.; wouli let informant know its decision in a fort-«ight.:Cv''-vv?;.;'.',.'.'.• • . :•..,-' .'. ~;; Mrs Mapkersay, said, there were two sides,tq ( a, house,, the.in and the out. If he liad the in 'she would have the out. r7 : '■.'•'

. ; ; fiis Worship. eaid ! he' would let the matter ataocj:Qverior'afovfcnight, and theii seewhat was to .she wanted an order for the" protectionof her wages she could haVe it. ''

Drnmmond Iv Elley.,;—.Judgment summons £67 Defendant examined. I by 'Mr Beard said, that since judgment was given against him he had been; to Dunedin and other places looking for employment.' He paid his' boat fare. His book debts wore over £461, and he had given instructions to Mr'Jas.' Brown to collect the accounts. ■Mr- Brown, having collected only about 305,. defendant askod a number of his customers for their accounts, but he had not enough money to enable him; to sue them."' •■'.-■■■"

Mr' Skipper for defendant said : he was willing to hand the books debts over to plaintiff, ;but after: plaintiff had satisfied himself heshould return; the balance; ; . Defendant had been looking for work but could not obtain any.,

The Court made an order for the: defendant to satisfy judgment at the rate £l2 a month, payable on 'lst'of every month, or in default 28 days; imprisonment.'- -' ■ ,

Jno. Vile v Tomahana, alias Bory Thompson.-Claim. for.i3-,..14s lQd. Case adjourned; for attendance of a witness, for plaintiff.

Ingram v John Harding. Breach of Borough by-laws by-driving without lights,. Finedss. . Drumraond v E. : Meredith, junior. Breach of Sheep Act, by reproving sheep without written permission from the Riversdale run. Mr Bunny for informant. . ■ ;

The defendant pleaded guilty to removing the sheep, but stated that on April the second he met the Inspector, who told him he had arranged tor. a simultaneous dipping in his neighbor; hood which would eradicate scab in his district. He agreed to- dip with the others at the Inspector's request. The cost of the dipping was £2OO, and ho incurred this expense to meet the ■wish of the Department. When iri the midst of dipping he had some sbeop to send away. Sub-Inspector Vallance saw several thousand sheep mustered and dipped, and ho applied to him for a permit to remove some of them; Mr Vallance then made an appointment to meet him at the Waironga to give the necessary permit, but did not keep it. "Witness waited two days for Mr Vallance, but he did not turn iip and no one knew where he had gone, to. To' meet the engagement he had made for the sale of the sheep in Masterton, he. was obliged to forward them to Masterton, He was himself called away from home, and he left word with his man to take on the sheep and get the permit from Mr Vallance. Witness thought it was a cruel thing after lie had, at a great expense, met the wishes of .the department, to serve him. with. a summons. Such permits wer6 never asked for. He had seen them given in blank. Be asked the Court to ask Mr.Druuimond to withdraw the ease. The intention of the section had been carried out to the very letter. The Court: Can you accept ; the suggestion mado by the defendant. • Mr Bunny: No, your "Worship. I do not accept the facts as stated by the defendant.

. An irregular altercation between' the plaintiff and defendant' took: place ot this stage, the Court pointing out tbat it was slightly injudicious on the: part of the defendant to comment on the action of the-inspector when he wished him to. withdraw the charge. Mr Bunny stated that Mr Drummond and Mr Yallance desired to give evidence to disprove the statements made by Mr Meredith, J Drumraond, sworn, deposed that Mr Meredith, Sen., was anxious for a simultaneous dipping, andspokoto him on tho subject, The defendant was also anxious to dip, and he did not do so at the instance of the department, H. W, Yallance, sub-Inspector, called, deposed that ho knew nothing about the sheep that Mr Meredith sent away, and that ho made no arrangement to inspect them,

The' Court inflicted the statutory penalty of £SO. ' . . William Neill v J. DevonshireDebt £27 4s. Mr Beard for plaintiff.' Judgment for amount and costs.

John Tnußcher, a little boy 11 years of age, was charged.with stealing aJI note from the house occupied by Mary Long, at Manaia,

Defendant said he wenhn the house with another boy named Collins and he (defendant) opened the box, The Court: Did you take the money ? Defendant: We both took it.

Collins, a younger boy but much taller, said they wont in the hoiiso, and Toucher told him to see if anyone came, defendant then'opened a.box, and the note was taken out, and they oroeeeded to the station, and. he (witness) got two tickets for Carterton, giving the £{ nute which he got from defendant to pay for the two tickets. They oama back after spending the money in Carterton, Sergeant McArdle proved that the lad bad been whipped twice before, viz,, in Maroh and April, 18S3, and stated that he was a great liar, V The Court; Is the father here ? K . The father, a German said (through Mr Moeller, who noted as interpreter) that he had tried the boy every way possible, and he was still a very bad boy. The Court: I shall have the. boy whipped, then sent . to the gaol for seven days and afterwards be placed in a reformatory untill 15 years old and the father must pay 8s a week for his maintenance. .

The father said he was a poor laborer having a large family (8) to support, and he could not eeo how to do it,

The Court said it would consider the matter but meanwhile the two boys were to be plaoed in separate oella until 2 o'clook when they should.come up again; and it would be decided übout maintenance money. . '. • .-".'•■