MERCER COURT.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 305, 23 December 1896, Page 3

MERCER COURT.

(Before His Worship Captain Jackson, S.M) The periodic sitting of this Court was held on Monday, when there was a case of special interesb, ib being tha firsb proceeding in bhe colony under " The Manied Persona Summary Separation Acb, 1896." It was a case instituted by Mra t Flora Sweet againsb her husband, Mr James Sweeb, farmor, of Mercer, for relief under bho third and fourth section ef the Acb, namely, for judicial separation, maintenance, and custody of her children, based on ths facb thab on bhe 24th of lasb month her husband was convicted by bhe Stipendiary Magistrate at Mercer of an assaulb upon his wife, and fined £5 and coats. Mr J. P. McAlisber now appeared for the complainant, Mra Sweet, and Dr. Laishley (instructed by Mr W. J. Napier) for the defendanb. Ab the oufesob, Dr. Laishley objecbod thab bhe Court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as bhe complaint had been sworn before a Juatice.of tho Peace in Auckland, wheroaa he submitted tbab ib was quibo clear by secbione 7 and 8, coupled wibh section 2, the inberprotab clause, that the initial application musb be made to tho Stipendiary Magistrate ab Mercer, or bhe Clerk of tho Court; and he quoted the Destitute Peraons Act, 1894, to show thab, excepb where there waa a statutory provision, a Justice of the Peace could nob issue a summons bo bring a case beforo a Stipendiary Magistrate when tbe latter had alone power to try the case. Mr McAlister conbinued contra, and also urged thab even it Dr. Laishley's argumenb waa sound, the defendanb was now present,and, therefore, tbe complaint could proceed. To this, however, Dr. Laishley pointed out that under Section 7 ib was absolutely essential that the proceedings in court should be based on a " complainb on oath." Ia consequence of the leaning of the Stipendiary Magistrate to support Dr. Laishley's contentions, a fresh " complaint on oath" was there and then laid, bub the Magistrate declined to order the defendanb to there, and then, plead to ib withoub full notice, and tho proceedings were aba subsequenb period of tho day entirely abandoned by tbe complainant, in consequence of cohabitation evidepce, which transpired at bhe hearing of a civil case between bhe parbies, heard laber.

The next case (tbe civil case just mentioned) was a suit for trover for £50 by Mrs Sweet against her husband for goods, which *she alleged wero hers, and which she complained her husband bad taken away. The same counsel appeared in this case. Several witnesses were examined for the plaintiff, and at the close of hefi. case Dr. Laishley urged tbab a nonsuit should bo entored, mainly on the ground that ib had not been satisfactorily proved that the goads were the property ot tho plaintiff, that no evidonee of their value had been given, and that satisfactory pt-sof of marriage had not been tendered, which, he urged, was indispensable in viow of the fact that the proceedings had clearly been instituted by a wife aeainsb her husband by virtue of the provision in the 14th section of The Married Woman's Property Act, 1884. Tho magistrate, however, whilst expressing the opinion that) the evidence on behalf of the plaintiff was nob entirely satisfactory, preferred hearing the evidence for the defence before giving judgment. Before, however, the evidence for the defendanb had been concluded, Mr McAlisfcer announcei. his intention to retire from the caso and retired, and after a further witness bad been heard for tbe defendant the Stipendiary Magistrate gave judgment for the defendanb. The only further action was a small debt case by Mr Brown againsb Mrs Sweet, in which no counsel appeared. lb was diamissed, Mr Sweet voluntarily undertaking to pay the debt privntely. The Court bhen adjourned ab about 8 p.m., Captain Jackson leaving for Te Awamutu.