LAW AND POLICE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVIII, Issue 6002, 11 February 1881, Page 6

LAW AND POLICE.

BANKRUPTCY. Re Joseph Greenwood.—A meeting of creditors was. held yesterday morning in this estate. The liabilities were set down at £1100, and the assets at £4SO. Mr. Thomas Macffarlane was elected trustee. ' RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.— ■■ Thursday. [Before J. E. Macdonald, Esq.,• R.M.T ■ The ordinary weekly sitting, to hear and determine small debt claims, was held this morning, and the following cases disposed of:— undefended cases. Judgments for Plaintiffs. —Holland and Fortzer v. Frederick Woolley, £4 19s 4d ; H. L. Posseniskie v. James ICcane, £6 5s ; Holland and Butler v. Frank Dewer, £4 10s Id ; Karsten v. Andrew Stephens, £1 12s 6d; Richard. Maginn v. Thomas Rodda, £5 15s 9d ; John Foss v. Jeffrey C. Hart, £3 9s 7d ; Thomas Ussher v. Herbert Jones, £3 10s. Adjourned.—W. Craig v. John Thorp, Henry Niccol v. Thomas Williams, Cochrane and Son -v. J, B. Ivillian, Malcolm Murchie v. James Johnstone, George Sibbin v. Maurice Kelly, jun. Jeryis v. Thompson.—Claim £10. Mr. E. K. T\ler for the plaintiff; Mr. Theophilus Cooper for the defendant. This was an action to recover the above sum as damage, in consequence of the defendant shooting the plaintiff s dog. All the parties reside at Devonport, North Shore, and the defendant is in the employment of Mr. Alison, butcher. Several witnesses were examined, and deposed,- ainong other things,' that the defendant admitted having shot the dog. The defence was that the dog was shot while in the act of worrying Mr. Alison's slieep; that the dog was of no market value whatever ; that Mr. Alison's sheep were being constantly worried by dogs. The plaintiff replied that the dog was of special value to him. He would not have sold the dog for £10. After argument by the learned counsel upon questions of law, his Worship reserved judgment.

Burton J. Davkny v. Ebenezer Gibbons. —Claim, £20. Mr. E. K. Tyler for the plaintiff; Mr. Theophilus Cooper for the defendant. This was an action to recover damages for injury done to the plaintiff's dog-cart, in consequence of a collision with a, mare left by • defendant wandering in Symonds-street, Onehunga, the plaintiffs horse taking fright, causing the leather attached to the swingle-tree to break, the swingle-tree to fall on to the hocks, of plaintiff's yoked horse, which bolted against a fence, nearly running over a nurse-girl and two children in his start from the road to the roadside. The plaintiff said lie met the defendant's mare, which was walking with a foal at foot. The foal crossed the road in front of the trap. Mr. Mackie, coachbuilder, Auckland, deposed to the damage done to the trap. There was a large number of witnesses for-, the defence, who deposed generally to the manner in which the plaintiff used to drive. One witness said Captain Daveney was a " reckless driver another said he was driving on this occasion at a "fast trot;" another said he usually drove at a " furious pace. " That he was driving very fast approaching the spot where the accident took place. Thomaa Brierley, an omnibus driver, deposed that Captaiu Daveney always drove very fast; — sometimes at a furious pace. On the day in question the horse was occasionally breaking into a gallop. Mr. Mackie and Mr. Cozens deposed that the damage done to the trap was about £S; the harness, being second-hand, -was worth from £3 to £4. His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for £12

SOMERFIELD ANT) LEOK V. GEORfiE Staines.—Claim, £12 Os 9d. Mr. E. Hesketh and Mr. Lusk for tlie plaintiffs. Mr. J. A. Tole for the defendant. This was an action to recover for goods supplied to tlie defendant's wife. The nature of the case will be understood from the opening of the plaintiff's counsel, who said : 1 shall be able to prove (1) the fact of the sale of goods by the plaintiffs to the defendant's wife; (2) that the person to whom the goods were sold is the defendant's wife; (3) that these goods were "necessaries "; (4) that the wife had implied authority of her husband to purchase goods. It is true that Mrs. Staines was absent from her husband's house, but I will show that she had been obliged to leave the defendant's house through liis cruelty. I shall show the : Court that lie nearly starved his wife : that he kept her without clothing : that she was at times destitute of bare necessaries for her subsistence ; that defendant threatened her, taunted her, and used to lier foul, improper, and filthy language, repeated over and over again. By reason of this conduct the defendant compelled his wife to leave his house. When she did leave his house she had actually not clothes of her own to go in ; she had been obliged to wear clothes belonging to others for weeks together, ; and she was actually wearing borrowed clothing even to the present day. Boots had to be lent to her. The articles purchased by Mrs. Staines were therefore absolutely necessary for her, and it would be shown -that they were suitable to her position in life. When these goods were purchased she'directed that they should be sent to the/dressmaker to be made up, and the invoice was sent to tlie defendant. But more than that—they had a child, and I shall be'able to show that this child suffered very seriously in consequence of the conduct of tlie defendant. The child was not properly attended to in consequence of the defendant interfering. His Worship : I hope the learned counsel is not opening anything that lie willnot be in a position to adduce evidence to prove. Mr. Hesketh : I have that evidence. I shall be in a position to show that this child being ill when tlie wife wanted to procure a doctor for the child, tlie defendant refused. Ho/,told her that she might wrap it in a shawl and take it to the doctor. Shb did'.take it to the doctor, who looked at tlie child and told her it was dying- The child did die next morning. The only thing lie did not do was to raise his hand to his wife. This he did not appear to have done. Everything else but that he did. She was compelled to leave the defendant's house'through this cruelty. I shall be able, if necessary, to prove that the defendant had a special reason for getting rid of his wife, and so compelling her to leave her husband's house, i shall be able to show the Court that the defendant brought into his 1 house another woman who was objectionable to his wife, and that he took this woman into his bedroom to dress ,liim for the funeral of his child. This: kind of treatment had continued for a ; period of four years, and Mrs, Staines would declare that she could bear the defendant's eruclty, abuse, and foul language 110 longer.., Mr. Frederick Somerfield deposed to the goods having been supplied. Mrs. Staines had had goods before, but paid cash for them. He believed Mr. Staines a man of property, and he might have credit for £20 if lie "liked. Margaret Jane Staines deposed that she was wife of tlie defendant. ; .She had , purchased tlie goods described; in the invoice. She gave directions that they should , be sent to a dressmaker. . Shp; purchased .the goods because she was in want of clothing. She had not been provided with proper clothing t>y the defendant. , tlie four vears that she had. been, married, the defen-

'-darit —had—-only "given -£er-- ; oHe —pound? She had sometimes to go the- whole of the- day -.without .. sufficient -foodi When he did come home late Tat night he sometimes; threw a few pence on the table, and said that it was more than witness deserved. . Witness had to .borrow food of neighbours.' Sometimes slie returned it; sometimes she was without means to return it. There was one child issue of the marriage. The child was in very delicate health., When she was confined the defendant objected to her having a doctor, because he did not think it was proper. She assented to do with a nurse upon that reason. When the child was ill -witness told the defendant that the doctor ought to be sent for. The defendant said, "No; it was only her teeth." He said witness might take the child to a doctor. She wrapped the child in a shawl and took it to Dr. Kenderdine. Dr. Kenderdine was very angry that the child should be brought out in its then state. He said it was dying, and the child did die next morning. The defendant once accused witness of being extravagant, the reason given being that there were tliree candles alight in the house, one was in witness's room, where she was doing her work, one was in defandant's room for him to read by, and the other was in the room with the baby up-stairs. Witness had had only two dresses made for her in four years. She was obliged to borrow clothing from her cousin, Miss Jolly, who was staying in the house for a while. She was • wearing some of these borrowed things yet. She had to borrow boots. She swore most positively that she never had 011 any previous occasion pledged ' her husband's credit, except on one occasion when ho allowed her to order a few pounds of butcher's meat, which he would pay for as he passed. She had always endeavoured to be economical. Mr. Staines brought a Mrs. Jtiaynes into the house. Witness objected. On the day of i the funeral, Mrs. Haynes went into the room of the defendant to dress him for the funeral. When witness left defendant's house she had not a shilling. She was formerly a schoolmistress. She intended to go back to teaching as a means of living. She required an outfit. What she ordered was absolutely necessary. She had silk and other dresses when she married Mr. Staines. She ordered silk for best dress. The defendant had locked witness out of the house. He called her the foulest names. Once he ordered herself and sick child out of bed, and into another room. He said he would kick her b neek downstairs. Crossexamined by Mr. Tole: The witness adhered to the above statement. She repeated in detail the language used to her, which was of the most horrible description. She said that even the daughter of Mrs. Haynes remonstrated with Staines for the manner in which he had spoken to his wife. Witness admitted that she had ordered a hat and bonnet at McLachlau's. That bill was sent to the defeudant. She had charge of the shop in Staines' absence. She usually gave the money she took to Staines, On a few occasions she used a shilling or two occasionally, not frequently. Staines was sometimes not in a fit state to speak to when he came home at night. Witness swore she did everything to make him comfortable. She repeated the language used to her, which is unfit for publication. The further hearing was adjourned to Tuesday next. POLICE COURT.—Thursday. [Before R. C. Barstow, Esq., R.M.] Drunk and Disorderly.—Frank Thomson for this offence was fined 20s and costs, or 48 hours' imprisonment. Malicious Damage to Property.—Edith j Smith was charged with wilfully and maliciously destroying several panes of glass in the Caledonia Hotel. There was a further charge of wilfully and obscenely exposing her person in a public place, to wit, Symondsstreet, oil the 9th instant. Prisoner pleaded guilty to the first charge, but denied the second. John Herbert Burns deposed to the conduct of the prisoner, which was of a very shocking character. Mrs. Bums gave corroborative evidence. Prisoner came to the hotel and represented herself as an actress, and one of the members of the LydiaHowarde troupe. Ordered refreshments, of which she partook and refused to pay. Smashed the windows on being asked to pay, and exposed her person. Alexander Bruce and Constable Foreman also gave evidence. Prisoner asked for bail in order to procure a female witness and evidence of Messrs. R. Best and T. Herd. Case was remanded until Saturday, bail being allowed by the Bench, herself in £50 and one or two sureties to the same amount.

Larceny.—William Willkius was charged with stealing a carpet-bag, value 12s 6d, the property of F. J. Bennett, on the 9th inst.; also, pair of boots, value 12s 6d, the property of Matthew Moore, Victoria-street. The case , was fully : proved, and prisoner, owing to previous offences, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Assault.—Edmund Hanson, on remand, again appeared on a charge of violently assaulting John Boase, by knocking him down and inflicting serious bodily injury, on the 28th ult. As prosecutor was still in the hospital, and in a precarious state, Mr. Pardy applied for a further remand. Remanded accordingly to the 21st.

; Refusing to Support.—John Galvin was called to show cause why he should not' maintain his mother, Mary Galvin, she being in impoverisl-'ed circumstances. Defendant did not appear. Mrs. Galvin could not give her son's present place of abode; he had been in want of employment, and had a numerous family to. maintain. Remanded for a month.