RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, HAMILTON. Tuesday.—(Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

Waikato Times, Volume XXI, Issue 1776, 22 November 1883, Page 2

RESIDENT MAGISTRATES' COURT, HAMILTON. Tuesday.— (Before Mr H. W. Northcroft, R.M.)

Wife-Beating. Sita'i:mt,k Makuihk was charged on the information of his wife with having, on the previous night, assaulted her. The evidence went to show that defendant went home somewhat the worse for liquor, and, getting enraged .it snm-jbhiii" 01 otheisflung at his wife, in succession, .1 loaf of biead, a candlestick, and a dinner-plate. The Magistrate held the charge pioved, and fined the defendant Hi and cost--, in default one month's lmprisouim'ut, and bound him over in his own lecoguis.mce of ■t'so tind two >uieties of V,2~) o.ich, to keep the peace for twelve months.

Prohibition Order. Annie Coombes applied for a prohibition order, under the Licensing Act, against her lm.slund, Samuel Goombus. She de]>osed that he was spending liis siibst.xnca in drink, and in consequence neglecting to pioxidu .tdequate nup])ort foi his family. The oulor w.is granted.

Wedxksday. — (IJjfore Mr Xorthcroft, R.M.) Another Wife-Beating Case. Samuel Cooinbes. was brought up on a warrant chaiging him vita violently assaulting his wife, Annii' CJoombe-*, on the previous evening. From the evidence of Mr* Coombes and lier little daughter, it .seems the accused wont home in the evening, and after upbraiding his wife for stopping his giog, .stiuck her on tlie back of the head with his fist. He kincked the furuitme about, and threatened to bum the place down. His wife ran out of the house in terror, and .it once communicated with the police, and obtained a w.manton which Coombes was airostod. .Defendant, in auswer to the magistrate, s.nid he had nothing to say. He was drunk at the tin-o, and remenibeied nothing of the occurience. Noithcioft said the plea of drunkenness only aggravated the offence. On the pievious day defendant was prohibited, and yot he gets drunk and boats his wife, (■inch a defence \\ as, disgraceful. He commented iv so\ere terms on the defendant s conduct, and warned him that if he veie ever brought up again on a .similai charge, he would, if convicted, be sent to gaol without the option of a fine. In the present instance he would do il leniently w ith the case, in ordei to give the defendant an oppoitunity of mending his ways. Defendant was fined 20s and costs, and bound over, himself in £25, and two suietiosof tlO each, to keep the peace for twohe months.