ELTHAM

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume LXXIV, Issue LXXIV, 3 April 1919, Page 8

ELTHAM

(From Our Own Correspondent.)

MAGISTRATE'S COURT

The usual fortnightly sitting of the Magistrate's Court was held yesterday before Mr A. Crooke, S.M. •■' Pierre Kugener wasr cßarged with failing to provide his wife and child with adequate maintenance. Phoebe Kugener gave evidence to the effect that her husband deserted her in Carterton some two years ago. As a consequence she was left destitute, and she applied for a warrant for her husband's arrest.

Constable Townsend gave evidence that Kugener was arrested at Christchureh, where it was alleged he was living under the name of Peter Wilton. This defendant denied, stating that he was working for a man of a similar name. An order was made for the payment of 15s per week for the wife and 5s for the child. George Cruden was charged with, discharging firearms within the thorough. Constable Townsend gave evidence that his attention was called to the fact that defendant was firing from a .303 rifle within easy distance of a road. , Defendant, who did not appear, was convicted, and fined 10s and costs. Police v. Edwin Wells.—This was a [case arising out of the sad fatality at Eltham whereby R. Clarke lost his life. The acting-coroner (Mr E. Par rott) detailed the evidence given at the inquest, and Constable Townsend also gave particulars, stating that the evidence of Wells with respect to the finding of a bottle of whisky on Clarke's ( bed was contradictory. Wells elected to give evidence, and denied giving Clarke liquor. The flask might have dropped out of his pocket while sitting lon Clarke's bed. Wells was fined £5, or a month in gaol. Defendant was given a month to pay. Coplestone v. Bartlett, application for a rehearing. Mr Crump appeared in support of his application, Mr Weir opposing. Mr Crump quoted authorities in support of his contention that this was a case where a rehearing could ibe allowed. His grounds were that the I verdict was against the weight of eyiI dence, and that since the trial affidavits ! had been filed producing new evidence corroborative of the evidence given previously. Mr Weir contended that the i case was not one for a rehearing. He [ said that it was necessary that any I fresh evidence should adduce new facts. Mr Weir gave other grounds for. his objections. The Magistrate could not see.his way to grant a rehearing. Costs were not allowed.

The case of Robinson (Mr Taylor) v. N. Brown (Mr Crump), which had been before the Court on two previous occasions, was proceeded with. The plaintiff gave evidence, and said he gave instructions that the concrete was a 5 to 1 mixture. Owing to some dissatisfaction he constructed a gauge. He saw Mr Brown at the end of the work, and he had no objection to offer. Other witnesses were heard, and decision was reserved.