THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

Evening Star, Issue 9832, 22 October 1895, Page 2

THE COURTS-TO-DAY.

CITY POLICE COURT.

(Before H. W. Bishop, E«q., S.M.)

Disouu£KiiY Behaviour. Sarah Jane Patterson and Thomas Mathews were charged with being drunk and disorderly, and were fined 20s each, with the alternative of seven days' imprisonment. Embezzlement. — Arthur Frederick Neto was charged with embe?sding sums of $lO 9s and £8 103 on the 3rd and 7th October respectively, tho moneys of his employers, Messrs Tilt Bros., Stratford, Tarauaki.— On the application of tho poHco accused viae remanded to appear at Stratford. Falsk Vuktknues. timed J. .Eucrette was oharged with, on tho 17th October, at Dunedin, unlawfully obtaining, by means of a valueless cheque, the sum of £5 from one Roderick M'Kenzie.—Mr Solomon, who appeared for accused, said he had only just been instructed, and asked for a remand.— Case remanded till Thursday. Wandering Cattle. Robert Mitchell, for allowing a cow to wande; on the Anderson Bay road, was fined ss. Assault. Catherine Marion Robertson was charged with assaulting Florence Cruse at South Dunedin on the 15Jh inst.—Mr Hanlon, who appeared for accused, said she pleaded guilty of a technical assault. The complainant, a schoolgirl, had called her nicknames, and she had taken her by the shoulders and administered a shaking. Fined 5s and costs.

Maintenance. George Bateman was charged by his wife, Helen Bateman, with failing to contribute to her support. Mr Bathgate appeared for complainant; Mr Sim for defendant.—Mr Bathgate said Mr Bateman had originally deserted his wife in Victoria about thirty-fivo years ago, and came to New Zealand, and now lived with another woman. In 1887 an arrangement was come to between complainant and defendant, by which the latter agreed to pay her £39 a year, which agreement had been observed up till July last. As defendant then ceased payment Mrs Bate man /.had instituted these proceedings. Counsel remarked that until recently Mr Bateman had kept a hotel, but was now out of business, and it was understood that all his property had been made over to the woman with whom he cohabited. The complainant was utterly destitute, aud unable to work for her living.— Helen Bateman gave evidence corroborative of the above statement, and denied that she had lived anything but a virtuous life since her husband's desertion.—George Bateman said he was close upon seventy-four years old, and had neither means nor ability to pay. The property he had made over to Catherine Boag, the woman he lived with, really belonged to her, as it was her money that purchased it. The value of the property in question might be £2,500. Iu 1875, believing his wife to be dead, he had gone through the marriage ceremony with Catherine Boag.—His Worship said that under the Destitute Persons Act the complainant had to prove the ability of defendant to continue the payments, and this she had failed to do. If he could have seen his way to do so he would have made an order, as.he considered the evidence of defendant very unsatisfactory. The case would be dismissed.