S. M. COURT.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume XVI, Issue 5022, 10 May 1895, Page 3

S. M. COURT.

JIASTBRTON.-THUKSDAY. | (Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.) : A, H.T. Rogers v. Mar.kLask.Claim £7, balance due on rabbit dogs sold to defendant. Judgment by default with costs. J. Montgomery v. Mrs Richardson. —Claim for £ C a disputed balance on contract, After evidence was given His Worship reserved judgment till 2 p.m. to-day. FHIDAX (Before Mr T. Hutchison, S.M.) IONINO A FENCE. Police v. Edward McKcnzie.—ln thin case the defendant was charged witli having on 22nd April last wilfully destroyed 20 chains of fencing, the property ot E. E. Chamberlain, valued atiC. Accused who was umlcfenced, pleaded not guilty. E. E. Chamberlain gave evidence that the accused, previous to the date of the offence, had been in the employ of witness, but had been discharged, On the 22nd witness found a barrow with straw at the gate, which his boy said was McKcnzic's. Shortly afterwards, when he had taken the liorsc out of the trap, he found the fence on lire. Did not sec accused commit the offence. Robert Thompson, in the employ of MrE. E. Chamberlain, said he knew the accused, and saw him on the dale iu question going past the property towards the Maori pah. He saw the accused set fire to the gorse with matches and then run away, Accused told witness that he was going to burn the fence because he had been discharged. Witness had also "got the run" because he did not tell his employer that the accused intended to burn tho fence. Accused was found guilty, His Worship reserving judgment till 2 o'clock. On resuming at 2 o'clock, Mr Pownall said he had been asked to appear for the boy, and he had such instructions, that it could he proved that the witness Thompson, set tlio fence on fire. The boy's father was away, and was in Mr Chamberlain's employ. His Worship said lie did not wish to seeamiscarrage of justice, aud adjourned the case till 10.30 a.m. to-morrow, McKenzic was admitted to bail on his own recognizance, TBAVBLHNO WITHOUT A TICKET, John Thomas Morgan Stanford was charged with having travelled on the N.Z. Railway from Fcathcrston to Masterton on 26 th February last, without a ticket. The offenco was proved, and His Worship imposed a fine of 20s and coHts. THE PfIOUIMTION ACT. Police v, Broadbeut.—Charles Broadi bent was charged with haying, on the

28tli April last, procured liquor for a prohibited person, Mr Povrnall for nccusod.pleaded guilty and asked for a light penalty. Sergeant MoArdlo said that the accused was noted for supplying prohibited persons with liquor, and had given a great deal of troublo to detect, His Worship said the Legislature intended to make this a serious offsnee and imposed a liue of 40s and costs, Mr Povrnall asked for a month in which to pay tho fine, Sergeant JfcArdlo objected to any leniency being given. His Worship said that two weeks would be allowed for payment of the fine and cautioned the accused that if ho committed a similar offence within six months he would not get the option of a line.

1). J. Pitton was charged with having procured certain liquor, being a prohibited person, Mr Povrnall for accused pleaded guilty and asked for a mitigated fine. His Worship imposed a fineof £1 and costs.

MAINTENANCE ORDER. Dew r. Dow.-George Dew, who failed to appear, was charged with having failed to comply with a maintenance order. The report of the constable who served the summons was that the defendant was cmploycdat Birmingham, but only got his food, He had a bad leg aud was unable lo travel. Mrs M- said that if her husband would conic this way he eoidd get employment at good wages.buthc would not come. A warrant was issued for imprisonment for one mouth, to bo suspended so long as a payment is made of 10s a week in liquidation of the areas. I'HOTKCTION ORDER. Williams v Williams.—Henry Williams was charged by his wife, Jessie Williams, with cruelty and alio asked for an order protecting her earnings. Mr Pownall for defendant said he was willing lo agree to a separation, and would ask that the children be scut to an industrial school. Mrs Williams said that the defendant cams home drunk and threatened to heat her, and she had to sleep out of her home. He earned money from Mr Gillespie and drew the money and drank it, Her married daughter had promised if she got a separation to assist her in the care and support of the children, The order was made with custody of the three youngest children, and costs against defendant 7s.

BAIIIIIT CASE. Miller v. Cross—Mr Pownall applied on behalf of Mr John Cross for a rehearing of the case heard at Tenui, on the ground that the hearing of the ease was set down for a certain day in March last and was adjourned till the following day aud at a different hour to which the former Court sat. The applicant only heard of the adjournment in a casual way.

John Cross, in evidence, said he was summoned for 2 o'clock on Monday, and was told that his case was set down for Tuesday, and lie did not understand it was at a different hour. If he had known of the difference of (he hour, he could have attended. He got notice from the Constable,' of the adjournment. Mr Bunny objected, ou behalf of the Department, and called F. It. Ibbetson, Clerk of the Court, who said lie told Mr Cross, in the Club Hotel, that his case was adjourned from ten o'clock on the Monday, till ten o'clock on Tuesday. There were others in the room, talkiug with Mr Cross, and the latter said, " Yes, I have heard of it."

Mr Bunny said he had no objection to Mr Cross giving evidence in mitigation, but lie would ask that the evidence be given in Masferton. His Worship said the case must he re-heard in Tenui, unless by consent. Mr Pownall said he was willing to withdraw his application for re-hearing and routine himself to giving evidence in mitigation. The application for re-hearing was granted, the applicant to enter into tho usual recognisances. The hearing to tako place on Friday next, at 10 o'clock, at Tenui. A FOCtXO DISPUTE. Christian Carlson y. August .Johnston. —Mr l'ownali for complainant, Mr Beard for defendant. This was a case in which the complainant claimed jfli 10s for repairing damage to fences destroyed by fire. Mr Beard took preliminary objection, which was overruled by His Worship. [left SIITIXO.J