Hastings S.M. Court.

Hastings Standard, Issue 323, 15 May 1897, Page 3

Hastings S.M. Court.

(Before A. Turnbull, S.M.) At the S.M. Court yesterday afternoon the following cases were dealt with : WIFE DESERTION. Andrew Anderson was charged with deserting his wife. Mrs Anderson gave evidence to the effect that she was married in 1888 to defendant and had one child. In 1891 defendant wn- ordered to pav 7s a week towards the support of this child. Their lives were very unhappy. He deserted her in August last and she had never seen him until now. She had received "no money from him and hud to receive charitable aid for 3 months, after which she went out co wash. Mr Lee's cross-examination was in the direction of making witness admit that defendant had given her money which she saved and that he furnished her house. George Barton, brother of the last witness, swore that Mrs Anderson was in poor circumstances since her husband deserted her. Defendant sworn, said he was cooking at Longlands and he had an attack of giddiness which prevented him from continuing the occupation. He always sent his wages to his wife. When he left Longlands he told his wife he would try bis luck on the gumfields. She was agreeable, and told him she had some money. She used to work as well as lie did. Had very bad luck on the Thames. When he arrived in Hastings he went to where he thought his wife lived, and was informed she had shifted. He was given to understand that Barton would do violence to him if he went to his house where his wife was, and consequently he did not go near her. He was willing to support his wife. After hearing further evidence the Bench dismissed the charge. A TOTALISATOR CASE. Wi Karina and Wiramu Ivohou v. W. Moreland (Mr G. 11. Lee). Mr Scannell, for the plaintiffs, said his clients instructed Moreland to take out a ticket on a certain horse at the Waipukurau races, which the defendant did, and when the horse won he refused to pay plaintiffs' share of the winnings, alleging that he placed the money on another horse, which lost. Wi Karina, sworn, said he and the other plaintiff told defendant to put 10s for them on the horse Progress. There were four Natives present when they gave the money and instructions to Moreland. Plaintiffs were only interested in the ticket, which was No. 12, on the horse which won. The dividend was £2O 10s. He was told so by a man who won. He looked for Moreland after the race, and found him at the stables. Asked him to go for the dividend, and he said they were not on the winner, he having placed the money on Forecast. He told his mate what Moreland said. When ha returned Moreland was gone, but he overtook him and accused him, and he pulled a No. 11 ticket out of his pocket, saying that was their ticket. He said that was not so, as he saw a No. 12 ticket in his hand before the race. Europeans then came along and took Moreland off. Moreland never offered payment since. Did not authorise putting the money on any other horse than Progress. Cross-examined by Mr Lee : Ivaupu .handed 10s to Moreland- It was not Kaupu who made arrangements with Moreland; witness made all arrangements. The horse Progress belonged to Omahu, and witness and his mate made a practice to back her whenever she ran. Witness was shown Progress' ticket when Moreland returned from the totalisator. Did not know how many tickets were on Progress. Had no money on any other horse. Wiramu Kohau corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. Cross-examined by Mr Lee : Did not ask Moreland which was the best horse to back. Were talking about Progress when Moreland came along, and they suggested clubbing on her. Forecast won the Trial. Moreland did not suggest Forecast as the horse to put money on. The dividends were written up in chalk on a blackboard. The race was run late, and everyone was in a hurry to catch the train. This would explain Moreland's hurry off the course ; but they (plaintiffs) were quite as anxious to catch the train as he was. Did not authorise Moreland to back Forecast. Defendants showed plaintiffs a Progress ticket as theirs. Had a ticket on Progress in the Ladies' Bracelet, and was satisfied with her race. Re-examined by Mr Scannell: He had followed the turf for about 16 years but was never treated like this before. Wiriha Ruha, cross-examined by Mr Lee : He lived in the same pah as the plaintiffs. Had no interest in the case under consideration. Re-examined by Mr Scannell: He was quite sure that plaintiffs told Moreland to back Progress and he (defendant) showed a Progress ticket as the one which he backed for plaintiffs. . Kara 13 a liuataniha gave bimilar evidence to the previous witnesses. Cross examined by Mr Lee : Had no share in the case before the Court. Mr Lee, for the defence, said that his client put the plaintiffs' money on Forecast at their own request and did not have a ticket on Progress. W. Moreland, sworn, said he was at the last Waipukurau races. He saw plaintiffs who ask what horse would win the • race and he told them Forecast. They asked him to put 10s on with them and after some hesitation he agreed to do so. He thought Forecast was bound to win the race. Did not think HProgress would win. Mr Little got the ticket on Forecast (No. 11) for him. Showed the ticket to Mr ,7. M'lvor. The Maoris did not see the ticket-at all. When he was leaving the pontiff* accosted him aggressively

spying that he had their mon ' Tic had no other money on tiio • 1 o I that day. { -.Vitness h:-ro enumerated ! the names of all those who had tickets • on Progress—lß in all.) Cross-examined by Mr Scannell: : lie advertised for the names of I hose j who had tickets in order to satisfy the 1 Maoris. .Did not pot any of those who | hud tick-Is 0:1 tha race to give evidence ■ on his behalf. Never put money on I the machine for Maoris before. * | Albert Little sworn, said he saw { Moreland, who asked his opinion on i the race. He said Forecast should j win. Moreland agreed with him and asked him to get a ticket on Forecast, I which he did and handed same to de- , fondant. There was no board for exj hibiting dividends. Was sure of this, j Cross-examined by Mr Scannell : j The black board may have been up for | the last race. Got a ticket on Forecast ' for Moreland and handed bim the ; ticket. Ho may have got a ticket him- ! self before that without witness knowi inj^it. | j. Mclvor sworn, said he was at I the Waipukurau races. He saw Morei land close to the machine. He asked j witness what he had backed and he said Straybird. Defendant said he had a j ticket on Forecast and he (witness) j saved 5s with him. Cross-examined by Mr Scannell : Moreland may have had other tickets on the race for all he knew. Mr Lee's address for the defence discredited the plaintiffs' evidence as contradictory and unreliable. Defendant got no instructions to put the plaintiffs' money on Progress. According to Section 33 of the Gaming Act, 1881, the plaintiffs could not recover the amount in dispute in law. His client only went into the case in detail in order to vindicate his own character. The 10s could only be recovered as money given which had not been accounted for satisfactorily. Mr Scannell said that the law required a person who held money that he must account for it. This was not a betting transaction. Defendant had received the money to place upon the horse Progress. Eventually the plan tiffs were nonsuited without costs.