R.M. COURT.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XX, Issue 2324, 12 January 1893, Page 2

R.M. COURT.

Wednesday, January 11th. (Before C. C. Kettle, Esq., R.M.) SURETIES OF THE PEACE. Daniel MoKirdy prayed for sureties of the peaoe as against his wife Mary MoKirdy. Mr. Matthews appeared for the complainant ; Mr. Hutchison for defendant. Eflorts to arrive at a settlement, urged by the Besident Magistrate, having failed, Ihe case was proceeded with. The evidence disclosed a very painful state of affairs, which had apparently existed more or less acutely ever since the parties were married some four years ago. The particular acts speoified in the in* formation were the throwing of several articles, including a knife. Very strong evidence as to tbe condnot of defendant was given by tbe complainant, by J. G. Dudeck, and J. Kent. The defendant entirely denied all the statements made by witnesses on tbe other side, and alleged ill-treatment on tbe part of the complainant. The Besident Magistrate said that it was impossible for the court to deal with the matter. It was really a case for another court, for it could not be expeoted that the parties could, after what bad happened, again live together as man and wife should. It was the first time he had ever known of a husband demanding sureties of the peace against bis wife. The alternative from finding sureties was going to gaol, and he did not know that a husband could send his wife to gaol in that way. Where was she to find sureties ? Mr. Hutchison suggested that, being a wife without separate estate, she would be entitled to demand a bond from her husband on ber behalf. Ultimately, Tun Kesident Magistrate said it was a j painful case, but he was satisfied that the husband's story was substantially true. Tbe plaintiff bad made out a case for protection, and he would order that the defendant, if called upon, enter into a recognizance in her own behalf, and find one surety of £25, that she will keep tbe peace for twelve months towards her husband ; but she would not be called upon to enter into the bond if she refrained from interfering with ber husband. STONE THROWING. Biohard White was proceeded against for throwing stones at tbe bouse of Daniel McKirdy on 31st December. Mr. Matthews lor complainant ; Mr. Welsh •for defendant. In this case it was alleged that White visited McKirdy 's house at 2 o'clock in the morning, throwing three stones into his house, one of which struck him. One of tbe stones was double the size of a man's fist, and carried away blind and screen. Complainant swore positively that he heard defendant oalling out; to him, and saw him throw two of the three stones. Complainant's evidence was to some extent supported! by that of Mr. Dudeok, who heard the smashing of glass, and saw a person running away ; he believed there were others about at tbe time. Defendant swore that he went home to Burrows' wbare at 11 o'clock and did noc go out after 12 o'clock on the night of 31st December. He denied having thrown any stones at MeKirdy's window, or having been there. John Burrows was there when he went home ; be went out abont 12 to bis gate and spoke to a young man for a few minutes, then went in to bed and did not go outside again. MoKirdy's bouse is about 12 or 14 chains away. He thought stones were thrown at every honse that night. In crossexamination he swore in reference to evidence given in the previous case that he never at anytime went to MoKirdy's in company' with anyone else, and was never struck by MoKirdyi John Barrows

was called in support olthaalibi set up by defendant; Mrs. McKirdy was called by tbe Court, and Mr. Dndeok Was recalled.

MoKirdy, recalled,' swore positively that he saw White throw the stones.

The Besident Magistrate Baid he bad to | decide which of the two stories be would believe, and the element of tbe charaoter of tbe respective parties influenced him largely in doing so. He bad, therefore, deoided to convict, and be regretted that tbe information bad not been laid under a clause wbiob would premit him to send defendant to gaol witbont the option of a fine. He would, however, inflict the full penalty of £5. This larrikinism must be put down with a strong band in the interests ofsooiety, and he hoped tbe fine would be a lesson to the young men of Eltbam. Costs would be allowed on the full scale. The costs amounted to £3 14s. CIVIL CASE.

Bewiri Ngatare v. Tarehu Bangihaeata. —Claim for £13 for building a house. Complainant would give no particulars as to time be bad worked, or in any way prove bis claim, and waß therefore nonsuited. Defendant said that tbe work done had been paid for.