MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 76, 25 February 1930, Page 4

MAGISTRATE’S COURT

BREACHES OF BY-LAWS. Offenders against the by-laws were dealt with by Mr J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. William Doyle was fined £2, with 28s costs and 30s witnesses’ expenses on an adjourned charge of failing to extend his arm fully when turning to the right on Napier Road. For riding cycles on the footpath Leslie Fioher, and Leslie Fitzsimmons were each fined 10s. with 10s costs. A penalty of 10s, with 3s costs was imposed on James Biggs for a similar offence, while Ronald Mudgway was fined 10s, with 12s coets. A penalty of 10s, with 10s costs was inflicted on Joseph H. Edwards for leaving a motor-cycle on a footpath. Failure to notify the sale of a car resulted in Adams, Ltd. ; being fined £l, with 10s. E. Wareing was fined £l, and 12 costs on a charge of using an unregistered motor-vehicle, and ordered to pay 10s on a charge of driving a car to which were attached number plates other than those assigned. INFORMATION WITHDRAWN. Legal objections were raised by Mr A. M. Ongley to the wording of the information when charges were preferred against Walter Bryan and Keith llainey on behalf of the S.P.C.A. Inspector (Mr Floyd). Each defendant was charged that lie “did use ail animal in such a way ns to cause such animal unnecessary suffering, or did aid or assist the fighting or baiting of such animals.” Mr Ongley appeared for Bryan, Mr Laurenson for Rainey and Mr Drain for the S.P.C.A. inspector. AVhen the ease against Bryan was called Air Ongley raised an objection, stating that only ono charge in respect of such an offence could lie brought at one time under the Justices of the Peace Act. “Then I may decide to withdraw this information and issue two fresh ones,” stated Mr Oram, who subsequently indicated that he would withdraw the second allegation and proceed on the first that defendant “did use an animal in such a way as to cause such animal unnecessary suffering.” Mr Ongley stated that the information disclosed no offence and could not be heard at aIL as the allegation made was not an offence under any of the sections of the Act, as far as their specific reference was concerned. Mr Oram stated that he did not think it was necessary to specify what particular action was alleged in the offence. The Magistrate considered that it was necessary for the defendants to know exactly with what they were charged. The submission made by Mr Oram was that the wording of the information was sufficient to indicate the nature of the offence. The Magistrate held that it was not precise enough. “I ask leave to withdraw the information then, and issue another,” said Mr Oram. “It is causing a tremendous amount of unnecessary trouble and annoyance.” The information was withdrawn with the consent of His Worship. An application by Mr Ongley for costs was not allowed. MAINTENANCE CASES. Objection to the alleged indefinite character of the complaint was voiced by Air Alert-oil, for defendant, when Harriet Jane Alaskery sought a maintenance order against Leonard Alaskery. Mr Merton contended that the complaint was vaguo in its form. There was nothing, he said, to indicate what complainant wanted. Mr Baldwin, who appeared for complainant, stated that the wording of the complaint was exactly as prescribed by statute. His Worship commented that it only indicated a request for maintenance. Air Baldwin said that was all that was sought. Mr Merton commented that there had been considerable friction between defendant and his fog some time past, and asked for an adjournment of the case. “I object very strongly,” said Air Baldwin. Air Alcrton indicated that ha> was agreeable to any reasonable conditions being attached to an adjournment. Mr Baldwin stated that in November, 1929, matrimonial disputes took place between complainant and her husband. As the result, a deed of separation was drawn up between the parties. Defendant was to find £312 for bis wife in complete discharge of maintenance obligations for her and his daughter. The parties had a joint interest in a cake and confectionery business. This was sold and Mrs Alaskery entered into a covenant not to carry on business within a mile of the Square. The purchaser paid over the money to defendant and complainant had received nothing. She was debarred from earning a livelihood by the covenant made, and the maintenance money agreed upon had not been paid over. His suggestion was that complainant should be paid £2 without prejudice for her maintenance during a week’s adjournment. Air Merton suggested that the ease would be heard next Alonday and any order could be made retrospective for a week. His Worship adjourned the case for one week, fixing tne maintenance payment in the interim at 30s. ORDER AIADE. Arrears amounting to £23 18s on a maintenance order were alleged against James Albert Freeman. He was ordered to maintain the instalments of 12s 6d a week and pay 10s a week off the arrears, in default 28 days’ lmprisonCASE ADJOURNED. Application was made by Alary L. Cooper for a separation from and maintenance by her husband, Heniy for defendant, asked for an adjournment on the ground that the summons had only been served on Saturday, and defendant had eleven dogs to feed. Mr Ongley stated that the dogs liacl not suffered during defendant’s absence for a week while his wife and son were there. His Honour granted the adjournment.