S.M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XV, Issue 4784, 27 July 1894, Page 3

S.M. COURT.

iMASTERTON.-THURSDAY.

(Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M,)

A.McKcnzicv.G.M.Pnrk.-This was an application for an attachment order on the salary of defendant, who is employed in the Post Office, Tanpo. Mr Pownall, who appeared for applicant, stated that he had communicated with Mr Gray, Secretary to tho Post Office, Wellington, but had not as yet received a reply. He stated that his client was willing, if His Worship would niako out an order of attachment over the whole of defendant's salary, to remit to the latter a portion of it. He proceeded to cite various authorities hearing on the case in point, chiefly those defining what receipts an order of attachment could be granted against. His Worship remarked that lie could not grant an order attaching a portion of the salary, At the request of Mr Pownall, His Worship decided to adjourn the matter tine die, pending a reply from Mr Gray. . The Court then adjourned,

MASTEHTON-FUIDAY. (Before Mr T, Hutchison, S.M.) Six boys ranging in age from about twelve to sixteen were brought up charged with damaging property bolouging to Mr C. Hughes. Mr Bcnrd, who appenred for tho informant, Mr Hughes, asked to have the information withdrawn. He stated that tho boys had made reparation. The damnge-had been dono by catapults, D, McMullcnwas charged with procuring a glass of beer from John Tucker while there was a prohibition order-in force against him. John Tucker stated that he caught defendant in tho act of drinking a glass of beer, in his hotel-bar. When defendant saw him, he tried to hide in a cornerof tho wall and drink the beer, He (witness) at once took the beer away from accused, and gave information to the police. Judgment

reserved.James McKcc was also charged with procuring drink for McMullen. John Tucker gave evidence to the effect that defendant came to his bar and asked for two pints of beer, and gave witness a two-shilling piece. When ho returned with the change, one of tho pints was gone and he walked round the bar and saw McMullen drinking his beer. Defendant stated that he did not know McMullen was a prohibited

person, . His Worship decided to dismiss tho case as he considered defendant did not know McMullcn was pro : hibited, In the case of McMullen, he imposed a fine of 40s with 6s costs, or, in default, two weeks imprisonment. " Police v. Leslie Dixon. The defendant, who was a boy of 13 years, • was charged with using language calculated to provoke a breach of the • pence, ; Ellen Dew stated that on the 17th of July, young Dixon passed and , used v-gMdiad .language to her young dnHghterTl'he boy had also beaten her littlo girl, This had alsooccurred on several previous occasions. Elsie Dow, 'daughter of the last witness, gave evidence corroborative of that of Ellen Dew, but stated that she only remembered the thing happening on one occasion. Sergeant McArdle deposed that when ho .informed tho boy, on serving the summons, what he was charged, the lad did not deny it, At this stage the case was put back in order to allow defendant to produce witnesses to show that the lad never left the shop at which ho was engaged as apprentice, on the date of the alleged offence. J. C. Ingram v. J. Matidel. This wiisacase in which the plaintiff (as Inspector of Nuisances), charged defendant with allowing a chimney to become foul. Defendant pleaded guilty and was' fined Is without costs, Westbrook v. Coy. Mr Beard for complainant and MrPownall for defendant, E, S, Richards, poundkeopcr stated that on the 6th July inst, by the the ranger, Mr Blackwood, five .horses wero brought, and were placed in the pound by witness, !fho total chargo was lis. This was about thrco in the morning, Later on in the day he received a notice from Mr Westook, H. G, Westbrook stated that ho leased certain sections on the River Road from MrDalrymple. Mr Coy, defendant also had. property adjoining, He (witness) took possession of property on the 3rd July, There

was a fcnco around tho sections owned by him and defendant-;; but there was no fence between him and defendant. On-taking possession lie tuned several horses out. On tlio 6th inst,, they woro impounded by the ranger. Fivo horses were turned out and the samo number were impounded. By Mr Pownall: Tlio horses were taken from sections 15, 16 and 18. Hcinferrod that tlio horses wore on these sections inasmuch as tlicro was no feed on the other sections. He turned them into tlio paddock through a gato which led directly on to defendant's property. Believed Mr Dulrymplo owned tlio sections, and did not know that he (Dalrymple) was not owner of tlio land, The only occupation lie (witness) had of the land was by turning his horses iii. Coy was in occupancy when he (witness) was in possession of the land.

By the Court: Did not take possession until the 3rd inst. The land had a wiro fence all round, except at the back, where there was n post and rail fence. John Blackwood deposed that he was-called upon by complninant,and asked by him to drive some horses to the pound, in order to impound some horses that defendant had driven into his paddock. This was on the iith inst. He wont there about 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, when defendant handed him over the horses. llt was not customary to go driving slock in the middle of the night, but he had no special reason forgoing at that time, It was dark, and he could not see what sections the beasts were being driven from. He only got Is a head for mileage. Ho expected to get more, but nothing had been agreed upon between him and defendant,

Mr Pownall raised a point of law that defendant was charircd not with illegally impounding, but with fixing excessive fees. '

Mr Beard stated that he was denrous of obtaining, not a conviction, but an order.

His Worship replied that if tho evidence showed there was illegal impounding, he would have no alternative but to impound.

Mr Potvniill stated that under the agreement between complainant and Dalrymple, the former was not an occupier of the land. His Worship answered that the deed in question did not aifect the occupancy; he (the S'.M.) considered that the turning of stock upon the land in question constituted an occupancy,

Mr Pownall proceeded to read tho interpretation of the Impounding Act dealing with the question of the right of occupancy, by which he would show that complainant had not had occupancy. His Worship: I have already ruled on that point. Alfred Coy, defendant, stated that he took possession of the land on the River Road on the 16th June. Ho remained in undisturbed possession until tho 2nd or 3rd .luly, when he found a horse and a cow belonging to complainant in the paddock, that was between his property and that of complainant, He turned them out, but later on he found the horse had been put in again, On the sth inst. ho spoke to the ranger and told hini to impound the horses. On the 6th inst., the ranger came very early, and ho turned the horses out to him on the road,

_ By Mr Beard: At about the 28th inst., the fence around the paddock was linishcd. Previously it had been used as a common by the people down there. It was on the authority of Messrs Perry, Gappcr and Moore he fenced, He obtained the permissionof the latter through Mr Hathaway. Dalrymple wenlto his(witness') wife, and spoke to her on the subject of the land, Before he took possession of the land, complainant's horses were running on it. S. E. Gappor stated that he gavo defendant permission to occupy the laud under dispute. Mr Dalrymple had no authority to lease the land. Walter Perry deposed that he sent defendant the permission to occupy tho land on or about the iGth of June. A, J. Hathaway read a letter from Mr G. Moore, authorising him to lease the section, His Worship said he would dismiss tho case, The real question in point was who had anterior posses r sion. Ho would dismiss the charge of illegally impounding the horses with costs, and witnesses' expenses. Mr Pownall applied for costs. Mr Beard objected to this being granted. Morgan O'Meara was charged with failing to provide for his wife with adequate means of support. Mr Pownall, who appeared for the complainant, stated that the case was brought under an agreement of separation, by which defendant agreed to provide for the support of his wife and children. He added that owing to the irregular habits of the defendant, tho complainant had been unable to live with her husband.

Mary O'Meara, wife of the defendant stated that she had been living apart from defendant, who was her husband.' He had not provided for her at all. She had left with defendant's consent.

Defendant on beiiy called refused to bo sworn and decided to give evidon affirmation. He said he had dono his best to keep a comfortablo homo for 12 years. At the instigation of someone elso his wifo had left his home. After this he made an agreement with his wife to keep her at £1 per week. He was willing to pay the amount as soon as ho could.

By MrPownall: Ho had not sold his gun and dogs, He had tried to raise money ou them and had failed. Considered that the whole lot was worth £2los. Borrowed a certain amount on the gun. His Worship decided to make out an order for 10s per week for tho support of his wife. The same defendant was then charged with failing to support his children, Mrs O'Meara gavo evidence similar to that on the previous case. His Worship decided to make another order for 10s, payments to be made at once. The case of the boy, Leslie Dixon, then came on for further healing. John Weill stated that the lad worked in Mr Whitt's shop. Witness did also. The boy worked about five yards from his (witness 1 ) bench. By Sergeant McArdle: The boy went home at 12 noon and 4.30 p.m., except that ho didn't leave the shop on that day. Ellon Dew, recalled: Did not know what time it was. Thought it was about four when the boy came, No one was there. Leslie Dixon, the defendant, stated that he went straight home from work overy day at noon. Ho passed at some distance from Mrs Dew's gate On the 17th, ho went past 1 Dow's gate, and did not see the little girl or her mother.' On tho'Saturday he saw the littlogirl and hit hoi', because she annoyed him,

Kb Worship, said that as tho boy received a good characterfromhis fellow-workers, and as there seemed somo doubt as to whether the words woro used, ho would give him the benolit Information dismissed, The Court thon adjourned,