RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 3634, 27 September 1873, Page 5 (Supplement)

RESIDENT MAGISTRATE'S COURT.

Friday, 26th September. (Before I. N. Watt, Esq., 11. M.)

Schmidt v. Griffin.—Claim of £1 33 Id, for bread supplied. Judgment was given for plaintiff by default for the amount claimed, with costs.

Waterworks Company v. Stables.—Claim of £1 5s 6d, for water supplied. Judgment was given for plaintiffs by default for amount claimed, with costs.

Brown v. Moss.—Claim of £1, for one week's wages as cook. Tue plaintiff stated that he had been dismissed by the defendant without notice. The defendant stated that plaintiff had Bimply been engaged to do work about his hotel when he had nothing else to do. Defendant sent plaintiff about his business because he entered his cellar by the window, without permission. Plaintiff explained that, after he went into the cellar for a candle, he reported what he had done to Mrs Moss. The Magistrate said lie considered, plaintiff was" entitled to a week's wages, and gave judgment for the amount claimed, with costs.

JUDGMENT 3.

The Magistrate delivered judgment in the following cases :—

Meikle v. Harper.—This is a cordplaint made by Jane, wife of John Meikle, the mother of an illegitimate child, 1 orn before her marriage, against Frederick Harper, as father of the child, for refusing to provide for its support, The complaint is brought under sections 5, 6, and 7 of the Destitute Person* Ordinance, 1843, by which the putative father, either alone or in conjunction with the mother, is made liable for the support of the child. For the defence it is urged that, as the complainant was married subsequently to the birth of her child, her husband, by the operation of section 57 of 4 and 5 William IV., chapter 76 (the Poor Law Act, 1834), aloue is liable for the support of the child.— Lang v. Spktr, 1, Meeson and W., p. 129. Against this it is contended that this Act is not applicable to, and therefore has net, under the English Laws Act, 1858, become law in New Zealand. [Before proceeding, I would remark by way of parenthesis, that it is possible that the New Zealand Ordmnce, No. 1, section 1, adopting the laws of New South Wale 3, and Ordinance 19, srssion 2, repealing the s me, may have affected the operation of the Imperial Act in New Zealand ; but, as I have no means of ascertaining, my judgment will be given irrespective of this consideration] lam of opinion, although neither the entire Imperial Act, nor the entire section quoted is " applicable to the circumstances" of the Colony, that so much of it as makes the husband of the mother of.,an illegitimate child liable for its support, is, under certain circumstances, and to a certain extent, applicable to New Zealand.—English Laws Act, 1858. I have now to inquire under what circumstances and to what extent it ia applicable; and this involves also the consideration of the question, Which operates as the latter enactment, the Imperial Act of 1834, or the New Zealand Ordinance of 1846 ? That is, do the concluding words of Section 1 of the English Laws Act, 1858, raenactthe provison of section 57 of 4th and sth William IV., chapter 76; or should they be read thus—"And Bhall" (unless subsequently repealed or superseded in New Zaa land) " continue to be therein applied in the administration of justice?" I think the latter alternative is the correct reading of the law, for if the English law had been repealed wholly or in part by the Ordinance of 1846, it could hardly be continued by a subsequent enactment. It appears then by the Ordinance—lst, That when tbe mother is not of ability to support the child, the putative father is liable for the whole support. 2nd. That when both tne mother and father are able to contribute to tbe support, they should do so in the proportions to be decided upon by the Justices. 3rd. That when the mother only is of ability to support the child, she alone is to be held liable. But what is the ability of a married woman, who has no income of her own, and only keeps her husband's house ? lam of opinion, even if the Ordinance only were in operation, that it would be the ability of her husband. But reading the English Act with it, as I think it should be read, then the liability which the Ordinance imposes on the mother is by her marriage transferred to her husband. Having considered what is the law upon the matter; I have now to apply it to this particular case. I am of opinion tbat the evidence of the mother is sufficiently corroborated for me to adjudge the defendant to be the putative father of her child, Arthur Harper, and to find that he has refused to provide for the support of the same. I do, therefore, order that the defendant, on this 26th day of September instant, and on or before the 26th day of every succeeding month, until the said child shall have attained the age of fourteen years, or until its decease, if it shall sooner happen, shall pay to John Meikle, the husband of the complainant, the sum of 16s, being one moiety of the estimated cost of the support of the said child ; and also that the defendant shall pay for the said John Meikle £1 10s, costs of these proceedings. Mr M'Keay, who appeared for defendant, intimated that his client intended to appeal against this decision.

Erodriek w. Dix.—This case had been postponed for the purpose of obtaining an opinion from the Minister of Justice respecting an unstamped receipt, and of securing the evidence of experts regarding some blots on a receipt, which it was suspected had been tampered with. With regard to the stamping of the receipt, the Magistrate stated he was informed that there was no statutory provision made for sach a case as the present one, and he would therefore give his decision upon the evidence adduced. The judgment was as follows :—" This ia a claim for £29 4s 6d, balance of account. The oral evidence of the plaintiff's clerk Hannah, and the defendant, in its most material point, is simply and absolute!} contradictory, oath against oath; but they both agree in thi3 point, that the receipt after it was given to the defendant was never again in Hannah's hand ; and therefore it could not have been tampered with by him, but if tampered with at all, it must have been done whilst in possession of the defendant. Why, however, it should have been done by the defendant, it is difficult to conceive, as in its present aspect it militates against his defence. Three out of the four experts consulted by me upon the appearance of the document,, agree with me in thinking that the '2' has been altered to a '3,' and altered back again to a '2;' but Hannah had no opportunity of doing this, and it is difficult to conceive any motive that the defendant conld have had for doing it. lam therefore 'constrained to give judgment on the document as it now stands, irrespective'of the" apparent tampering. Judgment for the plaintiff, £29 4s 6d, ■■with coats." ■•"•-■

Nolan v, Woj-Bp.-Thjg was an act%

brought by a late fireman on board the s.s. Phoebe against the captain for wrongful dismisftal. Part of the evidence and the arguments of counsel had been heard on the previous day, and the Magistrate now gave judgment as follows :—-" Upon reading the cases. cited by the learned counsel, I have come to the conclusion that, having sued and obtained judgment on a quantum merit for the services he has actually rendered, the plaintiff is not now entitled to damages for being wrongfully discharged, even it such were the case. Plaintiff will, therefore, be non-suited ; but defendant will be allowed no costs, the oase not having met upon its merits."

PORT CHALMERS,

Friday, 26th September. (Before H. M'Dermid, Esq., and Captain Thomson, J.P.'s.) A man named Edward Wood was charged with stealing a silver watch, value £3, Mid a £l-note and ft-j in silver. Sergeant Neill prosecuted. He called

Ross Anderson, who said ho was a fisherman residing in Deborah Bay. The prosecutor and the prisoner, with another man named Sullivan, had been drinking together from house to house on the evening of the 24th September. He paid for all the drinks, and at about half-past 11 o'clock they left the George public-house, and the prisoner told the prosecutor he had better come home with them. They then proceeded to a house on the Peninsula, when the man Sullivan said all the beds were full, and went insiile, leaving the prosecutor outside, who fell asleep, and did not wake till the morning. He then found his watch and money gone. He afterwards gave information to the Police. His money consisted of one onepound note of the National Bank of New Zealand and two half-crowns and shillings— making £1 9s in all. The note was a new one—a little dirty on the back. The one produced waslikeit. Thewatch produced waßhis; also.the albert guard, which was broken in taking the watch from his waistooat pocket. The watch was taken, and the broken guard left. On taxing the prisoner with the robbery, he said he knew nothing of his d—d watch j but he afterwards said he would show where the watch was, and witness need not be hard on him. This was while Constable Carter was present. Witness did not know' whether the policeman heard him say this or not—he said it was planted in the garden.—By the Bench : He was sure he had£i 9s, as he had £3 when he came to the Port, and had changed and spent £1 11s in all.

James Lilly, publican, Port Chalmers, changed a one pound nofco for the prisoner ye terday morning. Ifc was a National Bank note, a little dirty on the back, fl-ncl very like the noto produced. He had not seen the prisoner with any money for two or three days before. He would not swear that was the note. He gave Mr Stumbles the noto ho took from prisoner, in change for a five pound note. He had not taken any other National Banknote yesterday.

The prisoner asked no questions of the witnesses. ■ '

Constable Carter said he knew the prisoner. On the robbery being reported,: he made enquiries, and found the prisoner had changed one half crown at the Bailway Bestanranfc llooras, and another at the Port Chalmers Hotel. He hxd also changed a pound note at the Royal Hotel, Fort Chalmers. He (the constable) proceeded to a boarding house at the end of the Peninsula, and accused the prisoner with the robbery, who denied any knowledge of it. He asked him if he had any money on him, and he said he had only two: shillings for some considerable time, he then searched the prisoner, and found only the two shillings, and he then took the prisoner into custody. The prisoner afterwards said he would show witness where the watch was concealed, and said he had marked a paling opposite the spot. On the constable digging, he found the watch wrapped up in a .piece of rag. The watch produced was the same. Tfcia was the whole of the evidence.

_ The Bench,*in sentencing the prisoner to six months' hard labour, said his having confessed to all saved him from being sent for trial, and showed repentance on his part.