RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Westport Times, Volume V, Issue 781, 25 February 1871, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE COURT.

Friday, Feb. 24. (Before J. Giles, Esq., E.M.) Mr Home made application on behalf of Sirs Mary Rodders, for au order under the Married Womens' Property Protection Act, to enable her to constrain her husband to maintain aud restore her infant child Mr Home called the applicant, who said : I am the wife of William Rodgers. I have not lived with my husband for twelve months. I left him in consequence of his beating me. My husband is a miner, and has been working at the Shamrock Lead. I have been living at the Grey. I have maintained myself and child entirely without assistance during this time. I have a little boy four years' old. My husband took the boy away on Wednesday last. He met me at the steamer. I was taking the child to Nelson to put him to school. He wanted to see the child, saying that he regretted his conduct, and promising not to interfere with the boy. When the steamer whistled before leaving the river, he seized the child and got into a skiff. 1 followed him, and he made a blow at me. I wish to have the custody of my child. His Worship granted an order for the restoration of the child. CIVIL CASE. Munro and M'Laren v. Rowlands. Mr Pitt appeared for the plaintiffs, aud Mr Home for the defendant. This was an adjourned case, in which the plaintiffs sought to recover the sum of £22 15s 8d from the defendant, being the sum of £9 paid for a lease, aud £l3 15s Bd, expenses of preparing an agreement, The circumstances of the case were that the de. fendant and others held a quartz claim at the Lyell. In May last it was found necessary to form a company, and negotiations with that object were opened. It resulted that the plaintiffs were to be made agents for the defendant, and, iu consideration of their floating a company, they were to receive £IOO in paid" up scrip. The plaintiffs had not applied for or received their scrip, but sued for the preliminary expenses prior to their being constituted agents, which it was contended the defendant was called upon to pay.

For tbe defendant it was urged that the claim was one that the plaintiffs were alone liable for, they having undertaken to perform certain acts in consideration of receiving £4OO in paid up scrip, to remunerate them for any trouble or expense to which tbey might be put. It was also contended that the plaintiffs, having failed to float a company, as per agreement, were not entitled to any remuneration, it having been expressly stipulated that the scrip should only be handed over upon certain conditions having been fulfilled.

A mass of evidence, on some material points very contradictory, was taken, after hearing which. His Worship requested that all documents might be banded in. Judgment was reserved.